The URL can be used to link to this page

11. Rezoning Lake Ann Highlands, Lotus Realty1 1 1 E W 1co 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 11/02/94 ffina -11, 1217/94 CC DATE: 2/13/95 CASE #: 94-14 SUB, 94-7 REZ, and WAP 94-6 PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, and preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands. LOCATION: North of Highway 5 on the east side of Galpin Boulevard, in the SW 1/4 of Section 10 and the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116 Nort2e Q3in West, Carver County, Minnesota. Endorses ✓ Mod&0 -- APPLICANT: Brad Johnson Jack Lynchte+ Lotus Realty Services BRW P.O. Box 235 700 3rd Street South Dak SLbrritted to commissim Chanhassen, MN 33917 Minneapolis, MN 5541S..a soamrted to Councd� 934-4538 370-0700 2 - 13 - %, ACREAGE: 49.9 acres DENSITY: gross: 2.62 units per acre net: 3.56 units per. acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Windmill.Run and Royal Oaks subdivisions S - A2, OI - Elementary School, Highway 5 E - RR, vacant W - A2, single family farmsteads, Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. The southern portion must petition for sewer extension as part of the Bluff Creek Sewer project. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1013 feet and a low point of approximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor which is located in the southwest corner of the property. A small wetland, designated A 10- 14(1) on the City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the proposed north Highway 5 collector road. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) 1 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 1 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 1 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY ' The applicant has granted the city an extension of the 120 day review period until February 13, 1995. The original review expiration date was February 5, 1995. Therefore, the City Council must make a final determination on the plat at the February 13, 1995 hearing or have the applicant agree to an extension to the review time. A completed application was submitted to the city on October 7, 1994. The applicant is ' proposing the rezoning of the site from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Mixed Low Density Residential, R4, which permits either single-family or two -dwelling units. The proposed net density of 3.56 units per acre is within the net density provided in the City of Chanhassen 1 2000 Land Use Plan. The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the site into 92 lots and 2 outlots. Outlot A is guided in the Land Use Plan for medium density residential which permits a net density of 4.0 - 8.0 units per acre. Outlot A will be platted at a future date. 1 The applicant is proposing development of the northern half of the site in two phases. The first phase would consist of 38 units and would include providing roadway connections to Galpin Boulevard and an extension of Windmill Drive. 1 This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District HC-2 District. While single g Y ge family residences are exempted from the architectural design standards within the district, the 1 project must still comply with the highway corridor district intent which is to attain high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the ' greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, ' texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that this development has met the intent of the ordinance based on the proposed design and the 1 conditions of approval contained in this staff report. The applicant has stated that they do not have a specific builder at this time for the 1 development. It is their intent to market predominantly single level living. Based on the subdivision design, there will be multiple orientations in the housing units. Staff would recommend that we require that there be a variety of colors and materials used throughout the ' development to eliminate any monotony in the appearance of structures. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 3 The proposed northern Highway 5 access boulevard, which is proposed to run from West 78th Street to Highway 41, dissects the property. The Highway 5 Corridor Study recommended a mix of land uses with single family residential setback from Highway 5 and multifamily residential abutting Highway 5 with medium density residential providing a transition from the single-family (see attached North Alignment - Access Blvd. Site Development Concept, Figure 8.4). The applicant is proposing a development for this transition area that is less dense than what was envisioned as part of the study, but which is consistent with the existing Land Use Plan. The study also recommended the access boulevard location. The City Council emmead approved the southerly access boulevard locations at the final Environmental Assessment, EA, hearing ffl-etbeen held on January 23, 1995. Staff has The Highway 5 Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended the northern access boulevard alignment. The preferred access boulevard is a 32 foot wide urban street section (see attached Access Boulevard Alternatives, Figure 3.1) with a 10 foot pedestrian trail and boulevard landscaping. The applicant has revised their submitted subdivision plan eliminating altogether the north Highway 5 access boulevard. They have agreed to provide the necessary right-of-way within the area of Outlot A as required by the city when a final alignment is determined. Development of phase II of this project is contingent on the construction of the access boulevard. The applicant could construct this segment of the roadway or they could petition the city to have the road constructed. Development of this phase and construction of the access boulevard will require that a connection be made to Galpin Boulevard either through the Hennessey property or by crossing over Bluff Creek and transversing the VanDeVeire property on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Until the access boulevard is constructed, access to this project shall be from a local road connecting to Galpin Boulevard and via Windmill Drive. Development of phase H and Outlot A of the project is also contingent on the extension of city sewer to the property. The trunk sewer line is currently located at the end of Stone Creek Drive south of Highway 5. Outlot B is serving no function as pafe€ with this phase of the development. It should therefore be combined with Lot 16, Block 2, or be attached to the Hennessey property to the west. A 10 foot drainage and utility easement shall be granted over this corner. Access for the Hennessey property shall be provided via the future access boulevard or phase II of this development via Outlot B. Staff met with the applicant on November 8, 1994 to discuss areas of concerns and possible alternative designs that could address concerns of the Planning Commission, neighbors, and Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 4 ' city staff. Staff expressed the following concerns: the transition from the Windmill Run subdivision to the north, preservation of the knoll area identified in the Highway 5 Corridor ' Study, verification of building pad location and size, alternative zoning options and site design, and the need for housing elevations and building types. We provided the applicant with the these zoning options for the property: PUD, Planned Unit Development, for detached single family; RSF, Single -Family Residential, straight; R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, with a mix or single-family attached and detached; and R4 single- family attached. Staff also provided schematics of alternate plat designs for each of these zoning alternatives. With R4 zoning, the applicant could develop the property as proposed, but increase the slope in the area of the knoll to be preserved (which is the option the applicant chose), or revise the plat to bring a cul-de-sac to the top of the knoll and reduce the grading, or mix detached single-family and transition from the Windmill Run Addition by locating single-family detached housing either along the northern project boundary or as the entire first phase of the project with twin home development as part of the second phase. A straight RSF subdivision would be designed very similar to the Windmill Run Addition with a minimum 15,000 square foot lot area. A PUD subdivision permits the applicant to reduce the minimum lot size to 11,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. In addition, the applicant has scheduled a neighborhood meeting with the residents to the north ' for Wednesday, November 30, 1994. At this meeting, they are to provide the neighbors with brochures provided by the home builder regarding the types of units that are being proposed. The applicant has revised the grading plan to reduce the amount of grading within the area increasing the street grade from the knoll to the east to 10 percent and to the west to 7 percent. This revision reduces the cut at the top of the knoll from 12 to 6 feet. However, staff is concerned that we are compromising safety on the approach to the intersection in order to retain 6 feet of grade. Staff is recommending that this development be approved subject to the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND ' Currently, there are 218 twin home units within the city. Housing types are distributed as follows: detached single-family homes, 4,475 units (81 %); twin homes, 218 units (4%); townhouses, 309 units (5.6%), and multifamily, 529 units (9.6%). The proposed twin home ' development helps to maintain the housing diversity within the city and provides housing Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 5 alternatives for current and future residents of the city. Housing Availability Policy No. 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The development of alternate types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes. Chanhassen is committed to providing housing alternatives. The future land use plan is evidence of this commitment. Land designated for future single family units (1990 - 2000) will accommodate approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate approximately 1,500 units. As future development occurs, it is anticipated that alternative forms of housing will increase as a component of Chanhassen's total housing stock." SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is adopted. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre -developed and post -developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre -development and post -development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and post -developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2'6-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. DRAINAGE The proposed project includes the headwaters of the east and west branches of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek i-s are also n ' Lake Ann Highlands ' October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 ' Revised February 8, 1995 Page 6 ' DNR protected water. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100-foot buffer to maintain a natural ' resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor. The site falls into two watershed districts (Figure 1). Approximately half of the site drains naturally to the east branch of Bluff Creek and half of the site drains naturally to the west branch of Bluff Creek. It appears that the proposed grading and drainage plans intend to maintain a similar drainage pattern. Soils throughout Chanhassen contain very high moisture content. Groundwater has been observed in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater ' should be anticipated. Staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the street. The City has in the experienced that the discharge of sump ' pumps in the streets created hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the summer. Phase I of the Development The stormwater runoff for this phase of the development will drain to the east branch of Bluff ' Creek. The proposed temporary sediment basin will be sufficient for the interim as long as the discharge is allowed to run through a grass swale before entering the creek. ' The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer. Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the ' proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch basins. The proposed temporary sediment basin shall be maintained until ' the downstream permanent nutrient pond is constructed. Phase II of the project may not proceed without this infrastructure in place. Phase II of the Development ' The proposed temporary sediment basin will be replaced by a permanent downstream water quality basin designed to meet Walker standards as discussed in the City's SWMP. This pond will be sized to take the runoff from this site in addition to the fully developed runoff ' conditions from the rest of the watershed area that drains to the creek. Again, this pending Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 7 basin must be in plaee er- eensifueted as a paft ef the ever -all Phase 14 impr-evements. According to SWMP,-a the water quality pond is also designated just southwest of this development to treat stormwater runoff in the west branch of Bluff Creek. The basin is sized to take the runoff from the southern drainage district on the property (Phase II) in addition to the to lots along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to the property. Ideally, this water quality basin is to be used and modified to pretreat the runoff from the southern half of the development as well as the west branch of Bluff Creek. In order for Phase II to proceed this ponding basin must also be in place or constructed as a part of the overall improvements in Phase II. The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer pipe. Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for pre & post developed drainage areas conditions and individual catch basins placement. The proposed temporary sediment basin should be replaced with a permanent nutrient pond as discussed above. Storm Water Oualitv Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been estimated at $1,421/acre for low density developments. This proposed development of 35.2 acres would then be charged $50,019. This includes a land cost estimate of $21,000 per acre. Fees will be collected at the time each phase of the development is final platted. The City will need to be petitioned to construct the downstream ponds and a project ordered by the City prior to Phase Il approval unless the applicant constructs these downstream ponds. If this is the case, the applicant would be credited for the work. Storm Water Ouantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff U Lake Ann Highlands ' October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 8 ' storage. Low density developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The proposed low density development of 35.2 acres would then be responsible for a ' water quantity connection charge of $69,696. Wetlands rThere is one agricultural/urban wetland on -site that will be impacted by the proposed frontage road alignment. The applicant should avoid impacts, and if they can not, they will have to complete the necessary sequencing and replacement plan application process for the City and the State Wetland Conservation Act. Since impacts to this wetland would occur in Phase II of the development, staff suggests that the wetland alteration permit application be postponed ' until that time. If the City is petitioned to construct the road, then the City would be responsible to apply for a permit. ' Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetland located on the property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The ' principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins ' and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. EROSION CONTROL ' Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the gradin g and development ' plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and ' mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. UTILITIES ' Utility service is available to Phase I of the development. Sanitary sewer and water is available at the end of Windmill Drive. Due to elevation constraints, the sanitary sewer has ' limited serviceability to only Phase I. Phase H is proposed to be serviced with the extension of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer which is proposed to follow the Bluff Creek corridor through Outlot A in the southwest corner of the site. In order for this trunk sanitary ' sewer to be extended, the applicant will need to petition the City and have the City authorize a Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 9 trunk improvement project to extend sanitary sewer underneath Trunk Highway 5 from the south. Currently, the sanitary sewer is located at the end of Stone Creek Drive located approximately 3/4 of a mile south of this development. The City is proposing to extend the trunk sanitary sewer line in 1995 up to the elementary school located just south of Trunk Highway 5. It may be possible for the City's project (Phase II) to be expanded to include extension of sanitary sewer service underneath Trunk Highway 5 to this project. The applicant is proposing to extend the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive down to the future frontage road along Outlot A consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. The applicant should be given credit for installation of this 12-inch trunk water line. Typically, the applicant would need to only install a 6-inch or 8-inch water line. Therefore, the applicant should be given credit for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line. The exact alignment of the 12-inch watermain shall be determined with review of the final construction drawings for this development. Sanitary sewer service to Phase II is proposed to be extended in two locations from the future trunk sanitary sewer line along the west branch of Bluff Creek. Staff believes that one of the lines could be eliminated. This should be further investigated by the applicant prior to developing construction plans for Phase II. Along the westerly portion of Phase II adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, an existing homestead abuts this development. The applicant, in conjunction with Phase II of the development, should intend on providing sewer and water service stubs to the parcel. The City will reimburse the applicant when the parcel connects to sanitary sewer and water. The exact amount will be determined at the time when the parcel connects. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final platting of both phases. Construction drawings shall be developed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In addition, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval of the platting process. Fire hydrant placement in both phases will be subject to fire marshal review. These types of reviews are typically at the time of construction plan and specification review. The applicant shall relocate or add fire hydrants as necessary in accordance with the fire marshal's recommendations. 1 7 L Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 10 ISTREETS k n u The preliminary plat proposed to dedicate necessary 60-foot wide right-of-ways and 80 fe The applicant has agreed to provide the necessary right-of-way for the north Highway 5 collector street as part of the development of Outlot A. There is sufficient area within Outlot A to accommodate any alignment for this future street. In addition, the Windmill Drive extension will ultimately connect to the collector road. Street design appears to be consistent with the City's urban street section which is 31 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curbs and gutters. The preliminary plat proposes three fairly sharp curves which do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design speed. However, staff is not opposed to this layout since the curvilinear design adds character to the neighborhood and helps reduce speed. The appropriate traffic control signs will be installed by the City upon completion of the street project. Access to Phase I of the development will be by extending Windmill Drive from the north and another connection baek eat to Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Since Galpin Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department, an access permit will be required. This should be a condition of final plat approval. Prior to Phase II commencing, the applicant should be required to have the frontage road constructed from Galpin Boulevard to provide another access point. The applicant may wish to petition the City to construct this segment of roadway; however, depending on the scope of the project and City Council support it may not meet the applicant's schedule. The applicant may want to consider constructing this segment of the frontage road themselves from a scheduling and cost standpoint. The frontage road is also listed on the City's Municipal State Aid Route; therefore, the street must be constructed to meet State Aid standards. A trail/sidewalk will also be required along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. Phase H of the development proposes two cul-de-sacs with landscaped islands. Whereas the City is not opposed to the idea, the City does have concerns with regards to maintenance of the islands as well as parking within the cul-de-sac areas. Typically, the City requires that the applicant list in the homeowners association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities. In addition, the City will require that no parking signs be posted within the cul-de-sac areas. This is to ensure adequate turning radius for public safety vehicles. The City Council will have to adopt a resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-de-sac areas. Galpin Boulevard is listed as a collector -type street in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing the necessary right-of-way as well as a trail easement outside of the right-of-way consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Construction of auxiliary turn Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 11 lanes or bypass lanes on Galpin Boulevard may be a possibility contingent upon Carver County Highway Department review of the plat. Spacing between the intersections of Phase I and the future frontage road is adequate along with spacing between the Windmill Run development as well. Staff has previously made remarks with regards to the future development of Outlot A. Staff is concerned about future street access points off the frontage road. Staff believes the appropriate access point would be at the intersection of Windmill Run and the frontage road. There is a physical topographic separation (Bluff Creek) between this parcel and the one to the east which may result in a long dead-end cul-de-sac when Outlot A develops. Staff just wants to bring this to the applicant's attention at this time that there will be limited access points on the frontage road. The street grades range between one and ten percent which exceeds city ordinance. The applicant has raised the street grade to 10 percent to retain more of the existing knoll. The revision reduces the cut from 12 to 6 feet. However, staff is concerned that we may be compromising safety on the approach to the intersection in order to retain 6 feet of grade. Should the plat be approved with the 10 percent street grade, a variance would be required. Street grades are laid out to provide a very rolling affect through the neighborhood. This, combined with the curvilinear streets, should provide for a very unique street layout similar to Lundgren's Near Mountain development in the northwest portion of the City. Outlot B should be conveyed to the city or Mr. Hennessey for future access considerations. Currently, the Hennessey property accesses on to Galpin Boulevard. If the access boulevard location is shifted to the northerly alignment, staff still believes that this outlot should be retained to avoid lots having direct access on to a collector street. Staff and the applicant have heard the Windmill Run neighborhood's concern regarding traffic using their neighborhood as a short cut to and from the future access boulevard to Galpin Boulevard. Staff believes that it would be poor planning from a transportation standpoint not to extend Windmill Drive to the south. Staff does not believe that the proposed street alignment will provide a shorter route for traffic from Galpin Boulevard. The development contract for Windmill Run contains as a condition of approval that Windmill Drive south of Brinker Street is a temporary cul-de-sac and this road will be extended in the future. In addition, a barricade with signage was placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac indicating that this street will be extended in the future. ' Lake Ann Highlands ' October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 ' Page 12 ' Direct access to all lots should be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or the frontage road. ' GRADING ' The site is currently employed in agricultural use. The entire site with the exception of Outlot A is proposed to be graded. It is unclear whether both phases will be graded with the initial phase. The applicant should provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork ' calculations and the schedule of grading events. At a minimum the City will require grading of a temporary sediment pond with Phase I as shown on grading plan to provide an acceptable level of water quality treatment and flood protection downstream. ' Adjacent to collector -type streets (Galpin Boulevard and frontage road), the City does require berming and screening. The applicant, on the landscape plan, has provided some screening ' along Galpin Boulevard as well as minor screening along the proposed frontage road. However, no berming has been indicated on the grading plan. The grading plans should be revised incorporating undulating earth berms along the frontage road and Galpin Boulevard ' outside the City's road right-of-way. Landscaping plantings along the frontage road should be maintained a distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards. ' Possible site grading on Lots 5 - 10, Block 3 promotes surface runoff along the common rear property line from west to east. This drainage pattern may result in drainage problems for ' Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 3. A better alternative would be to route storm water runoff from the rear yards of Lots 5 - 10, Block 3, between Lots 26 - 32, Block 3, out to the street. This would avoid concentrating the drainage along one lot line. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION ' There are few trees within the developed portion of the site. Staff estimates that there is approximately 18,875 square feet of canopy area within the northern portion of the ' development (excludes Outlot A) primarily within road right-of-way which represents a 1.2 percent baseline canopy coverage. It appears that all of these trees will be removed. City Code section 18-61, Tree Preservation, requires a 25 percent canopy coverage for low density ' residential property with 19 percent of less canopy coverage. Forestation requirements for the site require the planting of 334 trees (1,529,134 sq. ft.times 25 percent minus 18,875 sq. ft. (existing canopy) divided by 1,089 sq. ft.). In addition, a replacement planting of 21 trees ' shall be required (18,875 times 1.2 divided by 1,089). The total tree planting requirement is Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 13 355 trees. Of these trees, at least 20 percent must be evergreens and no more than 33 percent may be from one tree species. Staff has reviewed the preliminary landscaping plan and notes that the plan does -net -meet the minimum requirements for tree plantings. Of the 357 trees being provided, 174 (49%) are primary species, 83 (23%) are ornamental species, and 100 (28%) are evergreens. The final landscape plan, which will serve as the woodland management plan for this development, must be prepared by a landscape professional. PARKS AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on October 25, 1994 to discuss this development. They recommended that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication. REZONING/COMP PLAN The rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Mixed Low Density Residential, R4, is consistent with the Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) guide plan designation of the property. Staff supports the requested rezoning of the property. COMPLIANCE TABLE CODE FOR TWO -DWELLING: Area - 10,000 sq.ft. per unit, Frontage - 50 ft., depth - 125 ft., Setbacks: front - 30 ft., side - 10 ft., rear - 30 ft., and access boulevard - 50 ft. BLOCK LOT LOT AREA FRONTAGE DEPTH 1 1 10,050 68.5 138.9 1 2 10,034 66.58 145 1 3 10,018 64.6 155.7 1 4 10,284 60.98 170.4 1 5 10,330 49.82* 188 1 1 6 11,422 50.16 208.6 1 11 0 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 14 1 7 16,560 59.69 237.2 1 8 19,026 60.62 275 1 9 12,627 79.97 184.1 1 10 10,478 55.03 190.5 1 11 13,356 56 199.7 1 12 14,164 56.64 213.8 1 13 15,676 35.01* 190.5 1 14 11,151 35.01 * 157.2 1 15 16,359 31.85 183.3 1 16 13,316 39.14* 188.1 1 17 13,867 46.14* 167 1 18 14,813 42.95* 197.7 1 19 14,959 100 160.3 1 20 14,386 105.1 160 1 21 13,628 35* 204.2 1 22 14,302 54.4 167.9 2 1 16,631 80 209.4 2 2 10,387 55 188.9 2 3 15,407 71.54 167.5 2 4 12,242 89.07 152.4 2 5 17,522 177.92 136.8 2 6 14,895 136.67 142.3 2 7 10,009 78.87 134.4 2 8 11,139 76.32 153.1 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 15 2 9 12,608 51.02 186.4 2 10 18,580 47.72* 209 2 11 13,529 54.61 192.6 2 12 13,086 53 170 2 13 12,724 70.01 161.7 2 14 12,416 70 157 2 15 11,607 69.35 151.5 2 16 13,036 71.18 167.9 3 1 10,046 63.93 162.3 3 2 10,215 77.38 172.6 3 3 10,151 60.02 168.5 3 4 10,017 60.26 166.5 3 5 10,033 66.06 134.1 3 6 10,041 60.92 132.3 3 7 12,605 64.78 139.7 3 8 12,322 84.83 151.2 3 9 12,136 79.23 178.8 3 10 12,121 81.61 175.5 3 11 11,311 36.1* 184.2 3 12 15,412 35.82* 181.4 3 13 12,310 40.98* 175.2 3 14 10,185 42.28 152.2 3 15 12,203 138.57 122.4# 3 16 13,099 108.2 144.9 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 ' Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 ' Page 16 3 17 12,991 61.3 163.7 3 18 10,391 66.51 159.9 3 19 10,119 66.51 155.7 3 20 10,071 68.04 151.4 3 21 10,240 92.27 170.5 3 22 10,638 78.91 200.9 3 23 11,272 84.6 204.3 3 24 10,765 108.49 177.3 3 25 10,181 72.1 151.8 3 26 10,000 61.9 143.3 3 27 10,016 73.41 137.0 3 28 10,003 74.06 135.9 3 29 10,008 72.04 141 3 30 10,420 70.49 151.5 3 31 10,648 81.29 164.6 3 32 11,755 76.74 176.5 4 1 12,836 76.12 155.1 4 2 10,107 69.89 145.9 4 3 10,034 71.29 141.3 4 4 10,060 71.11 142.2 4 5 10,020 68.32 148.3 4 6 10,690 68.4 158.9 4 7 10,020 60.47 168.9 4 8 10,466 60.08 174.0 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 17 4 9 10,151 58.04 174.7 4 10 10,020 58.79 171 4 11 10,927 66.94 164.3 4 12 10,457 67.19 156.7 4 13 10,600 64.39 151.7 4 14 11,524 52.6 160.8 4 15 13,487 41.1 * 196.6 4 16 14,124 47.68* 248.3 4 17 16,722 43.06* 240.9 4 18 13,237 40.38* 190.9 5 1 14,642 53.95 179.5 5 2 13,390 71.67 198.5 5 3 14,726 71.67 218.3 5 4 16,776 74.33 239.8 Subtotal lots 92 1,125,509 (25.8 ac.) 51.8 % of site Outlot A 643,360 (14.8 ac.) 29.6 % of site Outlot B 1,306 (0.3 ac.) 0.06 % of site ROW 402,325 (9.2 ac.) 18.6 % of site TOTAL PLAT 2,172,500 (49.9 ac.) Notes: * Complies with the width requirement at the building setback line. # Does not comply with City Code requirements , Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 18 FINDINGS Subdivision The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District with the exception of Lot 15, Block 3, which does not comply with the lot depth requirement of a minimum of 125 feet in depth. Either a variance request for 2.6 feet from the 125 foot depth requirement must be requested and approved or the lot needs to be reconfigured to meet the minimum requirement. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The ' proposed net density of 3.56 units per acre is within the density range allowed within the Residential - Low Density land use designation of 1.2 to 4.0 net units per acre. The development complies with the intent of the City's Highway 5 ' corridor plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, ' vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; ' Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. ' 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this ' chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure ' subject to compliance with the conditions contained in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 19 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure based on compliance with the conditions of this report. Wetland Alteration Permit When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland along the north Highway 5 collector road. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed district as part of the city's wetland banking system. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland within the alignment for the north Highway 5 collector road extension. This wetland is isolated and has been ' Lake Ann Highlands ' October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 ' Revised February 8, 1995 Page 20 ' altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complex. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. ' Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance ' operations during the life of the activity. Finding: Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining ' wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. ' S. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules ' 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland within the north Highway 5 collector alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. Water ' quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE Due to an advertising error in the Villager, the public hearing originally scheduled was not ' opened on November 2, 1994. However, since the abutting property owners were noticed, the Planning Commission permitted the applicant to present his development and allowed the neighboring property owners to provide input on the development at the meeting. ' The Planning Commission held its public hearing on December 7, 1994. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny rezoning #94-7, Subdivision 94-14, and ' Wetland Alteration Permit 94-6 by a vote of 4 for and 2 against. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 21 The primary issue for the majority of the Planning Commission was that they believe that the subdivision is premature due to the fact that the final roadway alignment for the north Highway 5 collector road has not been approved by City Council. They felt that the development was directing the roadway placement, the northern alignment, rather than the roadway alignment being determined by the city and the development conforming to it. Should the city approve a southern alignment, then the review of this plat would be meaningless, and the plat would need to be redesigned to conform to that alignment. A secondary issue for members of the Commission was that there is not sufficient control over the development once it is approved. They were concerned that once approved, there would not be a way for the city to assure that the high quality development, presented by the applicant, would in fact be built. They felt that a PUD would be a more appropriate zoning with its additional controls and guarantees. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following motions: REZONING The City Council approves rezoning #94-7 rezoning 35.1 acres, encompassing the land north of the south lot lines of Lots 1 and 10 through 16, Block 2 an Lots 15 through 19 Block 1, from A2, Agricultural Estate District to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District. consistent with the Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan." SUBDIVISION "The City Council approves the preliminary plat #94-7 for 92 twinhome lots for Lake Ann Highlands subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings This should be done prior to final plat approval. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 22 3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 5. Geeabine Outlot B should be conveyed to the city with Let 16, Bleek 2, 10 feet drainage antil:ty * �1, »b., �•.��e-��,�eT�emf,r attach to the Hennessey property to the west for future access and provide a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the street frontage. 6. Full park and trail fees be required pursuant to City Code in lieu of land dedication 7. The applicant will incorporate a variety of architectural features, colors and materials throughout the development to eliminate any monotony in the appearance of structures. 8. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 12. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 23 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 18. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate the frontage road right-of-way. 1 H d C Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 24 20. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 21. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 22. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 23. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. This proposed development of 35.2 acres is $50,019. 24. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The proposed multi -family residential development of 35.2 acres would be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $69,696. 25. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re -locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 26. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 100-foot wide conservation easement over the southwesterly 100 feet of Outlot A. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot. 27. Prior to Phase II receiving final plat approval, the downstream permanent nutrient ponds shall be constructed or scheduled in conjunction with Phase II improvements in accordance to the City's SWMP and the frontage road shall be constructed or scheduled for construction through the site out to Galpin Boulevard. No building permits shall be issued in Phase II without these improvements completed. 28. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain along ' Windmill Run. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12- inch water line. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 ' Update December 30, 1994 Revised February 8, 1995 Page 25 ' 29. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service stubs to the Hennessey ' parcel located west of Lot 16, Block 2. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the City for the cost of providing the service stubs when the property connects to the system. 30. The applicant shall list in the association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities of the ' landscaped cul-de-sacs. If the islands are not maintained, the City reserves the right to remove them or continue maintenance and assess the benefitted properties. The City , will adopt a resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-de-sacs with islands. 31. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin ' Boulevard or the future frontage road. 32. The grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with Windmill Run and incorporate berms along the future frontage road and Galpin Boulevard outside the right-of-way. The grading along the rear yards of Lots 5 - 10, Block 3, should be revised to promote drainage north along the common lot lines of Lots 26 - 32, Block 3, out to the street. 33. Landscaping along the future frontage road shall be maintained a distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards. 34. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork quantities and a schedule of construction events. 35. The applicant shall agree to provide the necessary right-of-way for the future north Highway 5 collector street as part of the development of Outlot A. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT "The City Council approves wetland alteration permit #94-6 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils. E ' Lake Ann Highlands ' October 27, 1994 Revised November 30, 1994 Update December 30, 1994 ' Revised February 8, 1995 Page 26 2. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before ' construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign." ' ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 10/3/94 ' 3. Letter from Ceil Strauss to Robert Generous dated 9/27/94 4. Letter from Richard J. Pilon to Robert Generous dated 9/28/94 ' S. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 6. Letter from Mark and Sharon Pryor dated 10/24/94 7. North Alignment - Access Blvd. Site Development Concept, Figure 8.4 ' 8 Access Boulevard Alternatives, Figure 3.1 9. Watershed Districts, Figure 1 10. Park and Recreation Minutes of 10/25/94 ' 11. Letter from Cyrus Knutson, MNDOT, to Robert Generous Dated 10/25/94 12. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous Dated 10/7/94 13. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous Dated 10/20/94 ' 14. Letter from Michael & Dawn Ronningen to Joe Scott Dated 10/27/94 15. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/2/94 16. Letter from Julie A. Wojtanowski to Don Chmiel Dated 10/28/94 ' 17. PUD Alternative Design Schematic 18. RSF Alternative Design Schematic 19. R4 Mixed Attach/Detached Alternative Design Schematic ' 20. R4 Attached Alternative Design Schematic 21. Letter to Residents regarding Hearing Cancellation and Rescheduling Dated 11/10/94 22. Letter from Ross M. Fefercorn and Brad Johnson to Neighbors dated 11/18/94 ' 23. Letter from Ross M. Fefercom and Brad Johnson to Neighbors dated 11/23/94 24. Country Home Brochure 25. Letter from Jeff and Wendy Stone to Joe Scott dated 12/4/94 ' 26. Letter from Virginia Bell and Stephen Tornio to Planning Commissioners dated 12/5/94 27. Neighbors' alternate development plan ' 28. 29. Letter from Bradley Johnson to Robert Generous dated 12/5/94 Planning Commission Minutes of 1217/94 30. Letter from Peter K. Beck to Kate Aanenson dated 1/6/95 ' 31. Letter from Peter K. Beck to Kate Aanenson dated 2/8/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE , CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ' APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services OWNER: Lars Conway I ADDRESS: PO Box 235, Attn: Brad Johnson ADDRESS: 4415 Fremont Avenue South I Chanhassen TELEPHONE (Day time) 934-4538 Minneapolis, MN 55409 TELEPHONE: 635-1535 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit J 4. Interim .Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits r___ _ $S@Q 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdiv'sion $400 + $1425 TOTAL FEE $ $2325 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 831" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ' PROJECT NAME Lake Ann Highlands LOCATION NE Corner of County Rd 117 and Arboretum Blvd. tLEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached. PRESENT ZONING Agricultural Estate REQUESTED ZONING R-4 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Up to 4 units per acre ' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION R-4 - Two -Family Homes REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Define use and zoning in accordance with Pxi sti ng guide plan and proposed plat. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information ' and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 'This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further ' understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1 also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant ate C� � Z `l y Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid $1W a4 TO Receipt No. 1 � yl r,516 V-4) The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. SENT BY:ARCHITECTURAL ARTS ; 9-19-94 4:31PM ; 33307-) 612 937 5739;# .? ' EXHIBIT "All That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section and that part of the Northwest Quarter, of Cares ver County, Minnota, described as foll10, ecrsion 1StTowship 116!, Township! 1116,y9Range 23 Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 10; an assumed bearing of South 01 degree 56 minutes 40 secon on the west line of said southwest Quarter, a distance of feet; thence North 88 degrees 03 minutes 20 seconds East, Of 1190.41 feet to a point one 3452. center of circle of said curve bearing 79dd s curve: 09 seconds West from said point, said point Also being the beginning of the tract to be described; thence Southwester said curve, a distance of 383.79 feet Central angle 6 degr atinutes 10 seconds; thence South 71 degrees 42 minutes 20 40SsecondssWestg a distarni7 feet; thence South 18 degrees 1 after referred to as Point 466.33 feet to a point that the point of intersectiontof�theoNortherlydrichtaof-aa beg in Minnesota Trunk Highway NO. 5 and a line 33.00 feet way lip measured at right angles to end Southey Carver County Road No. +}7. a Parallel with the centerlir degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds hEast',nce oendnp45sume with bearing of Of said carver County Road No. 11T, A dSstdnCe of g2$.the C South 55 degrees 12 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance00 fe feet to said Point A; thence from said Point A Souh 6S of minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 406.Z7 feet; thence de9i degrees 55 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance ee ; thence , less to the south line of said Southwest 500 feet n thejcefSott ptedor egrTes 00 minutes 05 secondsrEas of Section Minnesota Trunk Ni ass to the Northerly right-of-wgydlimeno right -Of -way line of ay No' 5; thence Easterlyalong said No southwest Quarter of unk Highway No. 5 to the easline of 21 seconds West alon9Ssaidoeast'line of t t ence North 2 degrees 04 m, Section 10, a distance 4f 1622. he Southwest 20 minutes 05 seconds Wost on a alineet; thence North 89 degre said Southwest Quarter. of S e Parallel to the north li to a point on a 34S2.34 Section 10, a distance of 1416,g5 f said curve beers North ot adios curve, the center of circ said point; thence Southwesterly degrees 24 Minutes 20`seconds Nest o1o4.42 feet Central Angle 02 degrees along said curve, a distance riless andgysngug' 7h`S tract contai�sm4nutes 11 Seconds to subject to an bject to right-of-wa 9'7 cares of land me Y and all casements Of ey 'A existing county road Uence on Is Eas t 1213.40 a distance the minutes Point of ly along aes 22 l eco nds mi notes is here- nni ng at e of steriy of e of North 1$ Interline It; thence 18. 73 Ves 12 outh 27 ore or 10; I of F said `therly said nutes s f e ne of e of of the re and I pr I I f I r.l I I I 111 t Ill E- I t- ( li :I�\ ��t` / /%iN•° t� II I 3h' III ��'ll� � � r "� - � � j I i�•,- ,. d �•v �i , 9.. b• • I � Y yyr E t S y r -- � � .t q yr, /,/y�� • ►'` '° - '§" ;;'tea i '�__—"—" — wK`• r ' MG•br- . --� I W/ Yje(rR.�it •rj ('• 1 r roc I fir' y r c d I� I �'.,, I. ' r , , �, .. ` \ , ;�, ;• , � .� � it L — - i 't.l1 ql ]Sri p,}tr \ a•.r 4.. �. it tG tj Z aa4,g3€a�ic cEaEI rtl � fEE1EII111i1i11E iEiiiElEI11ElEl1il1!!1 i �k��e°`��! € I? I pQ at r xi'e�d �dgtls �a[ �3 gaS t�a�A � iE11IEE11E111EEEIIIf! iE:IElIII If i�Cxi �ti ity Lf UL 9r E�tyg tli9T' �E rA 9 �5� ! fSs t. i i. t a � st ff� Cs; a�"a� � 1 � `; � EEs�i ` � �F•p�i� iMii lA`t i�c��cf Sill yzE��7i8�r�f geat9 5pt 8 g5ggg gg b } i .... .... .................. 44 tlI tlLq�ite}1� t3S�cS aeyt Si E6 ?�, 511E IIIHI11111E1111E1 a � � ]MI CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Officials\I DATE: October 3, 1994 SUBJECT: 94-14 SUB & 94-7 REZ (Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highland's) I was asked to review the development plans for Lake Ann Highland's stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; SEP 20 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." Analysis: Elevations. Proposed lowest ,floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review; by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. Dwelling Type. The pr necessary to enable the and Engineering Departm: the structure at the.t' designations (FLO ,or'RI proposed dwelling type, - chance for errors-durini the 1993 memo which lis used type of ,dwelling designations are .n�spections Division, Planning Department t to perform a satisfactory plan review of of building permit issuance. Standard R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for These standard`=designations lessen the the„planreview process. I have included ",and,,expi,ains these designations. Soils Report."','In addition, a soils report showing, "details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability, of natural and fill soil is required for pian"review, purposes." Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must,be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. I I Bob Generous October 3, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations: ' 1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. ' 3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, ' Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo L II C I g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\lkeannhi.bgl CITY OF CHANHASOrN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 9 FAX (612) 937-5739 TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -) -c DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. Fi O or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rea% -:Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Fury. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. S-rWO Designates Split Fntry Walk put This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling, , wo Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with. the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. TU r SE rR SWO FLO I or RL r- Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. 4r21 itu �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER then passed to the to proposed building ' must be used on all IlkSnnTATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES;, jr ' METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 7 7 2 —7 910 FILE NO. 1 September 27, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' RE: Lake Ann Highlands, Bluff Creek, City of Chanhassen, Carver County ' Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the preliminary site plans dated September 15, ' 1994 (received September 21, 1994) for the above -referenced project (Sections 10 and 15, T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: ' 1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is adjacent to the proposed site. Any activity below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which alters the course, current or cross-section of ' protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. 2. It appears that some of the stormwater is proposed to be routed directly toward Bluff Creek with the outfall approximately 100 feet from the channel of Bluff Creek. Stormwater sedimentation/ treatment basins, or other t appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the plan. If stormwater is routed directly toward the creek it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that ' are detrimental to the creek's wildlife values and water quality. 3. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary/urban. ' The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank, or the width of the floodplain, whichever is greatest. The development must be consistent with the city shoreland ' management regulations. 4. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) ' guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous September 27, 1994 Page 2 b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203). d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-7910, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS/MM c: Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD, Robert Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen Shoreland File Minnegasm A Division of Arkla, Inc. September 28, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-14 SUB and 94-7 REZ Lake Ann Highlands Lotus Realty Services Dear Mr. Generous: Enclosed are your prints for this project with the location of Minnegasco's natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this property from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer/builder/ owner. The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's Residential Energy Services, 525-7607, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal. Sincerely, Richard J. P'l�n, P.E. Senior A istration Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, NOVEMBER 2, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Lake Ann Highlands Developer: Lotus Realty Services Location: North of Hwy. 5, 1/4 mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, and a wetland alteration permit located north of Hwy. 5, approximately 1/ mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 20, 1994. �° �°Oki, Bluff Cre;;k Partners 'Hi -Way 5 Partnership c/o Dennis Dirlam 15421 Creekside Court ' Eden Prairie, MN 55344 David Stockdale & Angie McBryde Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 lJohn Hennessy & D. Rengers 7305 Galpin Blvd. ' Excelsior, MN 55331 ' Michael & Kristine Perry 7521 Windmill Dr. ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 'Kevin & Joan Joyce 2043 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,Jeffrey R. Stone 2103 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Julie Wo'Jtanowski 2145 Brinker Street ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael J. Gorra Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire 1680 Arboretum Dr. 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Douglas & Theresa Bentz Darleen Turcotte 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7240 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Theodore & Marlene Bentz J. P.'s Links, Inc. 7300 Galpin Blvd. c/o John Przymus Excelsior, MN 55331 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Sharon Pryor Jean Kingsrud 7541 Windmill Dr. 2027 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Carol Obersigner Brian R. Erdman 2075 Brinker Street 2091 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Amit & Ruth Diamond Collin & Desiree Brown 2117 Brinker Street 2131 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 The Rottlund Company Kathleen Hademan Suite 301 2059 Brinker Street 5201 East River Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fridley, MN 55421 October 24, 1994 Mark and Sharon Pryor 7541 Windmill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sir/Madam: We would like to take this opportunity to outline our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 49.9 acres of property currently zoned A2 Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential of 92 twin homes and one outlot referred to as Lake Ann Highlands. We recently built a home at 7541 Windmill Drive, in Windmill Run, a Rottlund development. As such, our home would border on the proposed development of Lake Ann Highlands. Before Sharon and I made our decision to build in Chanhassen, we looked into both Chanhassen generally, and into the area surrounding Windmill Run in particular. We talked to a number of long-time Chanhassen residents, and we were assured that Chanhassen had a reputation for controlled development and that a long term plan had been developed outlining the intended use of areas that had yet to be developed. Sharon talked with a member of the City Planning Department regarding the land immediately around Windmill Run. Sharon was assured that the long term plan was to develop the land around Windmill Run as Residential - Low Density (single family homes). In addition, we have reviewed the "2000 Land Use Plan" which also indicates that the plan is to develop the land around Windmill Run as single family homes. Sharon and I relied on the information provided by the City, both in terms of verbal assurances from the City Planning Department and in the "2000 Land Use Plan" in deciding to make a substantial investment in building our home. We are now very concerned that this requested zoning change, at a variance from the planned use, to construct twinhomes rather than single family dwellings, will reduce our property value as well as to reduce the use and enjoyment of our property by having it border on property with a much high concentration of population per square foot than we had expected. In addition to concerns about the placement of medium density property in this area, Sharon and I have reviewed the Preliminary Plat of the proposed twin home development, and have concerns about the Preliminary Plat itself. The Preliminary Plat calls for the development of 46 twin homes, or a total of 92 families, in the development over two stages. This would be nearly three times the size of Windmill Run. However, the Preliminary Plat does not call for any streets which would exit directly onto Galpin Boulevard. Thus, all of the traffic both going and coming from the twin home development would travel down Brinker Street and Windmill Drive. Thus, we can expect to have traffic from all 92 twin home "units" (none of which are in our development) passing directly in front of our home. In fact, in reviewing the Preliminary Plat, it appears that the primary goal of the developer was to see how many lots could be "jammed" into the 50 acre space. We feel very strongly that the City should stick to the plan as outlined. Many people have made significant decisions based on this plan. This is not a question of opposing higher density housing in general, but rather, simply requesting that the City follow the plan which it has established for controlled development. The City of Chanhassen had the foresight to develop a plan for future development. The residents of the City deserve to be able to rely on that plan in making their decisions. Thus, we urge the City Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request. Sincerely, L el_�� Ma & Sha o Pryor ACCESS BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES An 28'-0* WIDE - URBAN SECTION LJ■ . 32'-0* WIDE - URBAN SECTION 01. C. 36'-0' WIDE - RURAL SECTION 2 V ■ 40'-0' WIDE - URBAN SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m q%Mi 2Ali jr PSI a b1S�� `1aft�asE9itt�at _rpT aaa a 1�MC34i MC -Al CL2.3_._...... e at.7 961a , �-�T W. iJ"W30Cr24� �w.s \CL2.2=za, M2a 4 - 2CS.2rMC 6R "+ A. t7 .a t� Ns MC4 8�� LM1.6 I 24�. C4 wj i3 1 2a 3fl 7.o Pi avolow _ 0, 1. .4 C4 �r .15 1u-As MC A3 j" MC4 1 ' t t0009 909.0 9r 9 ^ CL H f MC3.1 I w-pr.s I''lo03 looa ,2 �L_A1 ,�..� _. >. 2p C 9 / 33 ft�S rte LY-Pf.7 LY-R f 1o1a.o tot7.7 (J ` 955,5 95a2 j 1 O I . , 9 .7 001.3 ♦ `3U LU t , LU1.1 . „ c!r Pls 3" 1 LM1.1 Zt yCL-rir �17 \9 .o c�Pr r MCA LMt 7 2a r' 1(-Ai 2� 9 G t000. 12* sa;o easr=OFt l 24 u 1 1 LU 1 t r to t. 1 5•21 4 •2 1 i LM1.1LM1.88 t LUt 8" L / ; 1 \ 2r X ur-rci // 11 r_-1 z4� 4 LU L 99 Vd�Z2 � . _ cirri.. ,•4�,. f� 27 6A t. __ 2s crrrr e r _.'q24. . . - L7+Prd 4•LU1. 0 , , 720 ♦ 76.1P1f0 1M1.9a Z :1 r 2a" JD LU5.1 %ono toga 3:, 2y -f8' 1 i s pee.a 7t.` I yf n �- w-rf.s 1 ... - : 188�' w-nr . 1ld1.8 24 (�2 ! i Yr 970s 0 r •� w-PLr 991.7 s.0 w-Pt 97 t 1.16 ui-a7.r i seo� ,' T v w=rar- 3d a 99t 5 . • ° w_yt* moo. wta LIJ1.70� L .l LU1.tt w-H.e (J 993.7` �30' 1�5.4 q" 33" ` 96t.0 962.. 1, 5 ! .w-Pr7 9 ei2 LM1s7C _rs. 2 tw..o 98� w- !< 1a 12" ` LM 1247 - 5� r -- ig 6' 2a LU1,1 t - o LU3.3 j2' 4 t•• j / i ` LU1.1 �i1• s t r 9asQ Z. ; - Mz.e ,0 �' I� 2770 ?1 w-n.to 3 { 1�ft •.e Q r \ i' 336 ,ti ProLm Meb •.�,..� �J2 1 �i M2. 1 aw-Me r � 24" 11 ! 2a Taros( . �70.0 730 7 LUS. ` U3 4. R -24-- _.... , T 1 2$ 1 Lfr-rz�L 9 99a \ 5�... 1U5.9tZe� .._. LAKE LUCY . - TRICT�LL,o LM2.i o-zio I-OM9_Lr�rrs2 l9 fri-Ns.re'. �rLU3 If t0.8' 1 $Ct.112a- ;;i r1' LU-A4 ' . L�A1KE Ji j 1otaA 1ort ^ a 3 9 a tpY • �f' E er-As ..t7/ y C1.2 � � t\ � 1U34 +4rlL1D. 10 1o1eo toga Q- 24 - i tU3:4A i ms • t 903.0 pc1. ec-rca� ' urw•r ...._.._ ..._Q. • l24 1.� , 990.0 991.5 J w-Mv I 3 to-pr.r U 1: 9a24 -2.0 83.8 BCI. i` b LU 6 15 1 t �> = 1l tact.� 6 �z �.7,` 5 { .LAKE. fBC1.1 A.. ,� Oct. 12� I " AN N , 7t12 9M91. Yl-P5. f0 24 y53.2 951f.3 - -rL 4 / ••2 _ L -E �ANN DISTRI a9oa Q ,BCt.7 - - 9oao 9e2s 3� \\ BC1.1 BC1 2 , 4' t. 10... I 10.1 11 24) 2q"� 244"" 1 • BC, c- 124 Vq� x r7.9 BC3.3��2a"••� C3.2 W.4i LA1. ( �53.4 lS3.t}24''�`r 30 x RCP 4 LS3.18 2r R' 1f �' BC3.4 BC3.5 I ; �f27Z r is -IMF *,op t8C 1.23, . r 43 1 Ls LS3.12 2 r t 24' BC2.2 24 ? 1 ,24: ` • . BC3.6 ram- .r 2i'LS3.2 24"� '1� 7 LS3.2 ts-w 924" �.. �BC1.19 f. Ec- f ec-vs 53.3 LS3.9� 3 LS31"4 27A 9 E 079 f, BC1.2 954.0 9 .3 24 ,ya3.0 373 3C)" 2 y 53.10 4' 9sa.0 9A9.9 ` BC_A1 ?! ec-Pca--� BC3.7 q i . r3 = 24 aC2.3 ` 1 `,? 93a.o 7 - X. ? m,o -1 L LS3 11r l �3. 2 _ 937A 910 2 -�. 1 s ._ _ W a.e o 2.17�-t 2 LS3.31 BC2.16 j N, a- aC1.26 ^ �i r �t 3 35 . 939.0 t5 !A :3.17r C3.1 LS !yis: S ..- o - n� ! 3 2 L53.32 [4.8C2.17? / / C / 30� �C10 985,0 nM .t 909.0 912.5 3 \ n 1LT-Pr. BC2 1 m BC3.1 24k fir__ BC3 to m ` , e �rx 10r 90 4a99.5 2a' �� 7 � C n 3.19 BC3 i 5 LSS2 8 _J !1 ` 3.y _rs. " �+ % 1 BC1.28 i / t y ' , 13Ct.27 3T BC1.32 i / 0 t 30" 2 J acne % (� \...--.:.. 31T = j 1-... 5a'. _i {1 . 93a.0 937A 1 ,' , r 4" : Q/+ 153.77� iLS3.70 LS3.7{ 24 i i BC 1.29ti iA i 7C uv l 0 s 9 10�\ a� j �j (s-lam 3 46QBC3.21 124 BC3.8 53.7 Tr .,', �r Lake Ann Highlands 2, BC2 i \. 25 �i ; l / A ec-rs.130" s ,{ l BC3.2 3T 900.0 BC1.19 24+ ec3.1.r" FIGURE 1 >x 1 a 4Z7 • '� 9C2 2 • { { ... 1 0 C1.20 3'-- 1 BC3.29 3Z1"� Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 Andrews: Okay. Hoffman: Annual review. Come back to the Park Commission. Huffman: Could I make a recommendation? I'm sorry, if somebody else wants to. I was just going to make a motion that we offer the 30 mph speed limit on our section of the trail, 11:00 curfew 7 days a week. Andrews: I guess one clarification Todd. Is there a starting time? I mean if you curfew people off at 11:00, what time are we letting them on? Huffman: Let me amend that motion to 11:00 p.m. off trails to 7:00 a.m. to be consistent with Chaska. Andrews: Is there a second to that motion? Meger: I'll second that. Andrews: Any further discussion? Huffman moved, Meger seconded that the Paris and Recreation Commission recommend a 30 mph speed limit and an 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., seven days a week, curfew be established for the Southwest Regional light Rail Transit Route. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO R4. MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES INTO 982 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, LAKE ANN. HIGHLANDS. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Andrews: Is the applicant here? Hoffman: No, he's not. Andrews: Or a representative of the applicant. 2 IPark and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 Hoffman: No. Andrews: None, okay. If you'd like to make a comment. State your name and address please. John Hennesey: My name is John Hennesey. I'm at 7305 Galpin Blvd. I have, Jerry can point those out for me please. Those two parcels there. I have to wonder, there has been no decision as far as I know as far as putting a trail on the east or the west side of Galpin yet. Andrews: I believe we're leaning towards. ' Hoffman: Both sides. Andrews: Both sides, okay. John Hennesey: A trail on both sides of Galpin? Hoffman: At least on the south side of Highway 5 and the north side of Highway 5, it will carry less traffic. South of TH 5 you'll see a four lane road. North of TH 5 it's at least ' anticipated at this time that will remain a two lane road. We have not designated east or west. Usually one will go first and then the other one would come later as things fill in but ' we haven't designed east or west at this time. Lash: I know we did acquire an easement, didn't we on the Lundgren site on the west side. ' John Hennesey: Yeah, because I know I haven't been approached at all as far as acquiring an easement along my 450 feet of frontage on Galpin yet. This whole project's a little bit, looks to me like putting the cart in front of the horse inasmuch as there is no determination yet where the parkway paralleling TH 5 is going to go. Whether it will be on the east side of the creek, which would be to the south of my southern border, or on the north side of the creek ' which would cut that lower parcel of mine in half. Without knowing that, how can you make any type of dedication? Andrews: I can probably answer that. I served on the Highway 5 task force. The people that own the land have the right to develop and not wait for the ultimate decision as to where the road will be placed. I think this may be just somebody seizing the opportunity to say, I'd ' rather have it my way rather than wait for the State and the City to come by and tell us what they would prefer. So this might be their way of trying to do the best they can for themselves. And you're right, there's been no decision yet as to the exact layouts of the road. 5 J� Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 The last time I heard I think we're talking what, 2000. I think they pushed it out some more years I know that. Hoffman: ...they can enter this from the north but all those types of questions would be appropriately brought up at the Planning Commission. John Hennesey: I notice on the plan here he's got a fairly large stretch of road from here... Andrews: Again, the Highway 5 access boulevard was designed as a wide collector. It also had a right-of-way to allow for a separate trail. Separated by, I think it was at least 12 feet of buffer so it's a fairly wide right-of-way. So it would look, on a map, significantly larger than a standard side street. John Hennesey: But that still hasn't been determined whether it's going north or south. Andrews: On the creek? John Hennesey: Yes. Andrews: There was a preference but there's been no decision and to be honest, I don't recall which way the preference was anymore. But there was a preference but that, like I said, has not been approved. John Hennesey: Okay. So as far as what he's dedicating, is that still up in the air? Andrews: As far as the roadway goes? John Hennesey: No, what he'd be dedicating land wise for this trail and park. Andrews: What we're asking is he dedicate money. What Todd was saying is that this whole plat is within a service area of other park areas so rather than for us to take land, the recommendation would be to take cash. Lash: Yeah, we'd take cash and then is it not that we would take easement along TH 41? Hoffman: Along CR 117, Galpin? Lash: Yeah, that's what I mean. 3 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 Hoffman: They're requiring additional right-of-way for the road, this county road so we'll go ahead and construct our trail within that right-of-way. John Hennesey: Thank you. Andrew: Sure. I guess the only comment I'd like to add here is 94 twin homes, that's about 180 plus kids. Boy, I would hope the developer might find it within their pockets to put up a play structure. Perhaps that would be appreciated. John Hennesey: Excuse me sir, I think what his plans, in talking with Brad, he's telling me that these are mostly designed as more single level, geared towards retirement. Andrews: Okay. I guess I would assume if a developer could sell one of these to a family, that they'd be happy to take the money. Roeser: Yeah, I think they've been using that a lot lately. Huffman: My 64 year old grandmother went horse bike riding and bowling with us this past weekend and I think she likes to have a little area to call her own too. Lash: And a lot of retired people have grandkids that come and visit and then they have nothing to do when they go to grandma's. Huffman: Say Todd, a quick question. I don't understand this one as much. Maybe this has already been conversed, and I don't want to hold this one up at all. This sounds like Rottlund on TH 101. They're pushing a lot of townhouses in here. They're telling us they're going to bring in the kindly old people who don't want a lot of space. We're about to go and push for a referendum asking for space. They're going to have to go across a major collector to get to their designated play area across Highway 5, which only the Lord in his infinite wisdom, or her infinite wisdom, knows when that underpass will ever be built. So we're going to tell 180 families, which they will sell it to quicker than will get built, there's no park there for you. If you drive to it. Andrews: That's correct. Huffman: I'm trying, I don't like this. Andrews: It doesn't make economic sense for us to build a park across the street from another park. 7 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 Huffman: I understand that. Lash: Well especially when you've got Stockdale. You've got the elementary site. And then, granted they are both across major collectors and I don't like that either and then you have Lake Ann, which by the time these are filled up, I'm assuming we may be getting close to the point where there will be a trail along TH 5 where they could go by foot to Lake Ann. And crossing Galpin between now and then I don't look at as being as big a problem as crossing TH 5. That's obviously going to be a problem, even if there is a light there, which is supposed to go in sometime in the near future but that still will be a dangerous proposition. But I'd be hard pressed to ask for property. I don't necessarily like it either Dave but it's hard when we're trying to build up some money in a fund too to acquire property when it's within the radius of three different parks. Berg: Particularly when other areas are deficient. It'd be hard to justify a park across the street when there's other areas that don't have one across the street or even close. Huffman: Are we talking about a park or an open space here? I mean I'm asking at this point. • Lash: Either way you look at it, it's money out of our fund so if we don't take the money, the park at Stockdale's never going to get developed. You know it could be that this could be the money that's going to come in that's going to give us the money to develop Stockdale. Andrews: Yeah, it's a trade. Hoffman: At Mission Hills you got both the open space and the park fee because it was a PUD. As far as I know, this is not a PUD. At least I don't see it referenced anywhere in the materials that I have and I've not heard... conversations with the planner. So the Mission Hills we were able to go ahead and ask for that open space because we were giving them something so that's why we asked for some open space. This one, if it's not a PUD, you don't have the luxury but if any of you want to ... make it public space, I can't advocate that because we're not into building breast pocket parks. So then it would need... Andrews: Yeah. I guess I think the best we can do here is to state for the Council that we're concerned about access to the neighboring parks, which are waiting for development. That being the trails. The access trails. They need to be built. And maybe this means we've got to push the Highway 5 upgrade a little harder because I think what Dave said is true too. These things will be occupied probably before the road is even built. There's going to be 180 potential families that are landlocked. They can't get out of there and as somebody that lives 8 ' Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 Park and g in a landlocked neighborhood right now, it's pretty frustrating to not feel safe to travel out of ' your neighborhood so. Hoffman: 94 home sites total. So we double... Lash: That is twin. That's counting them each separate? Hoffman: Yeah, they each have their own lot. The density is considerably less than that of Mission Hills. Mission Hills was R12... this is R4. 4 units per acre. These people will have ' a yard, front and back. Roeser: We're just talking Phase I too right now, is that right? ' Hoffman: No, Phase I and Phase II and the outlot. ' John Hennesey: Of course Phase II can't develop until sewer is accessed to that Highway 5 side. Phase I will access from the back... Windmill Run. Lash: And when is that? John Hennesey: Pardon? ' Lash: When is that going to•happen, do you know? ' John Hennesey: The Phase II? ...Kate told me the other day. Lash: Is that the '95 study area? ' Andrews: No. ' Huffman: I've seen miraculous things happen when Phase I sells out though. It's amazing how quickly Phase II can go into action. ' Andrews: Well this might be the kind of development too that will kind of push things along. Get the road built. Get the trails built. Sometimes that's the push you need. Can we have a motion? Lash: I'd be willing to make a motion. I recommend that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the Lake Ann Highlands and collect full park and ' trail. fees, to be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 Andrews: Is there a second? Berg: Second. Andrews: Any further discussion? Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction for Lake Ann Highlands. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. Andrews: Again, I'd like to add the comment for the Council that we're concerned about construction of trails to provide access to neighboring park sites. ESTABLISH AN AGENDA FOR THE WORK SESSION WrM THE CTTY COUNCIL IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED PARK_ OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACOUISTTION AND DEVELOPMENT REFERENDUM AND PARK AND RECREATION GOALS. Andrews: Todd, I don't know how much detail you need on an agenda for this. For what it's worth, I took a stab at one. I guess I'll throw this out as an idea and this is pretty vague. I don't know if you need more specifics. I just put item 1 as goal setting. Item 2 as referendum. And I put a sub -hearing (a), discuss overall needs of capital. (b), prioritize needs. (c), establish time frame and number of dollars necessary. Berg: What did you have in mind when you said goal setting? Andrews: That's the overall Park Board goal setting that we go through annually to talk about what do we want to accomplish next year. And I guess I put that first because I figure the referendum would be part of that goal and that way we could get that accepted as a goal first and then push through it to provide details to what the referendum would be. Lash: And I'd like to have that clarified that, and no offense you guys but that it not necessarily be staff goals because that ate up our whole meeting last time. Manders: Frankly I think that goal setting could be at the end and the assumption is that the goal is to get this referendum through and deal with these other goals as a secondary issue. Lash: Well my goal for meeting with them is to convince them that we need to pursue at least having a task force to study this issue and the task force I thought was the one who was 10 IPark and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994 supposed to be coming up with all the different things that we want. the referendum to cover ' and dollar estimates for that. Was that correct? That was my understanding. Hoffman: Yeah. It's really a give and take process. You have a back and forth process as ' far as referendum. The City Council has not asked all the specific questions on how much information they're going to want to see prior to establishing a task force. So what we need to bring in is as much information as we can. Why go out and cheat the moon when they're ' going to come back and say, well we don't ... so the task force is going to do the detailed work. It's kind of how obstructionist do you want to be and how many questions you can ask... If the City Council backs us, they'll go along with it and ask some questions. ' Andrews: Well you were asking for us to have an agenda so you could have material ready for us, correct? And to me, to discuss the overall needs of capital, that's the most critical ' thing. We have to show them why do we need money? Bandimere. The trails. Lake Minnewashta, the new park there. We've got Stockdale. We've got the desire to buy some forested land. Some open space or prairie space. I think those are all. ' Lash: Some more park property too. Is that what you want from us? Just some ideas of what it is that we're looking at things that we would want to have fall under the referendum ' to be financed by the referendum so that you can pull together more information, or what do you want? Hoffman: I want your ideas on what we should discuss with the City Council. What are the key factors that are important to you in order to convince them that they should go ahead with this thing. We just want to set an agenda. Now if you want to, and I need to know ' which one goes first. If you want the referendum first or goal setting. You know how goal setting, I don't care if they're your goals or our goals, but try to make it specific because I don't want to sit there and talk about staff goals for the entire. Andrews: Why don't we put the referendum first so we don't get bogged down and eat up all ' our time. Lash: Well actually it ends up, it's hand and glove. I mean if we have to say, we want to ' have a task force. We want to study the possibility of having a referendum and these are the reasons why. We need to develop Bandimere. We want to try and preserve some mature treed areas along with construction of TH 212, whenever that happens. ' Huffman: Bluff Creek charette. Lash: Right. Preserve Bluff Creek. We want. ' 11 o��NN�OTq Fy rOF Ta October 25, 1994 Robert Generous Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Robert Generous: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 SUBJECT: Lake Ann Highlands Preliminary Plat Review P/94-101 Northeast quadrant of TH 5 and CR 117 Chanhassen, Carver County CS 1002 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Lake Ann Highlands preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. • A Mn/DOT drainage permit will be required for the proposed development. Application for permit must include drainage computations and drainage area maps showing both existing and proposed conditions. Existing drainage pattern and rates of runoff must be maintained. Development, as shown on the plans, will double runoff from property. Permanent ponding should be used to control flows to Bluff Creek and to the storm drain at the east side of the site. All storm drains shown lead to TH 5 and will cause ponding in the highway right of way; this must be prevented. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District should also review the development proposal. Questions may be directed to Bonnie Peterson of our Hydraulics Section at 797-3054. • Bill Warden of our permits office may be contacted at 582-1443 for permit applications and questions about the permit process. An Equal Opportunity Employer 11 Robert Generous ' October 25, 1994 Page two • We request that the owner dedicate access control where the plat abuts Trunk Highway ' 5 right of way. Please provide Phil Keen of our Right of Way Section with a copy of the final plat for our records. It may be sent to him at the above address. Questions may be directed to Mr. Keen at 582-1283. • Provided the development plan is consistent with the city's plans for Arboretum Boulevard frontage roads and provision for a bikeway along the boulevard is made, we ' have no additional comments regarding the proposal. Questions may be directed to Ron Erickson of our PreDesign Section at 583-1295. IIf you have any questions regarding this review please contact me at 582-1387. ' Sincerely, ' Cyrus Knutson Transportation Planner ' c: Roger Gustafson, Carver Count engineer g Y John Freemyer, Carver County surveyor U— F] U-1 0 I� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (612) 361-1010 FAX (612) 361-1025 COUNTY Of CAIZ?vEQ CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE , 600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 , October 7, 1994 , TO: Robert Generous, Planner II ■ n FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Preliminary Plat ' Lake Ann Highlands (94-7 Rezoning and 94-14 Subdivision) Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Lake Highlands subdivision ' transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated September 20, 1994. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways ' functionally classified as Collector (Class 1) are: Urban Undivided 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 80, 100, Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 110, 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100, 110, 190, 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class 1) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 40 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 80 foot corridor. This corridor would only meet the minimum needs for an urban roadway. It appears the development to the north has a 50 road corridor. The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed ' to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision ' in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the ' city. 5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the ' County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead I utility consideration. 6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed ' within the road right of way. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed ' development. I 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (612) 361-1010 FAX (612) 361-1025 COUNTY OF CAQVEQ October 20, 1994 TO: Robert Generous, Planner II ,l FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, 1; SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Lake Ann Highlands (94-7 Rezoning and 94-14 Subdivision) Revised plan. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE , 600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Following are comments regarding the revised preliminary plat for the Lake Ann Highlands subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated September 20, 1994. 1. The change in the proposed right-of-way width has been noted. 2. The County's recommended minimum access spacing for a collector roadway is 300 feet. It appears that this proposal will meet that minimum. An access permit from Carver County will be required. The developer may want to verify that adequate sight distance is available for placement of an access at this location. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste C k L 7 0 7 October 27, 1994 Joe Scott / City of Chanhassen Chairman Planning, Commission F.O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Mr. Scott, We recently relocated to Minnesota frocu Illinois. Coning from one of the fastest growing and over -developed counties in the nation the location of our new home was just as important to us as the home itself. During the fast week in July we met with city employees and planners in Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. We purchased zoning maps and studied 112000" plan maps. Based on the information gathered we chose to live in Chanhassen. We invested in a $225,000 home based on information provided by the City of Cbanhass-en. We were informed about the Highway 5 corridor, a strip convenience type strip center at 5 and Galpin, with singlee family homes (possibly on smaller lots) adjacent to Windmill Run. When questioned about variance to this plan we were told that surrounding neighbors would be informed during the approval stages. Notification of development came from our neighbors not the L-v of Chanhassen as was promised. We have received letters regarding the Lundgren Long Acres subdivision but nothing on property directly adjacent to our subdivision. We invested in a home in Chanhassen because we believed in your conunitnent to qualify development Not the gross over developed under serviced area in Lake County Illinois we moved away from. We intend to protect our investment. We want single family homes on at least 10,000 square foot lots, appropriate traffic routing in and out ofthe proposed development and information regarding development (and variances) throughout the process. Sincerely, A.' Michael & Dawn Ronningen C E Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO R4. MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES INTO 93 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD (CR 117), LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, LAKE ANN HIGHLANDS. Public Pivsent: Name Address Jeff Steinke Mike Gorra Blane Hammer Joel Reimers Rick Manning Cinda & David Jensen John Hennessy Amit Diamond Colin & Desiree Brown Mark & Sharon Pryor Allan & Mary Jane Olson Julie Wojtanowski Kathy Haldeman Joan & Kevin Joyce Ed & Kathy Loveridge Michael & Kristine Perry Bonnie Lou & Charles Peterson James & Jeanette Freidler Peter K. Beck Ross Fefercom Steve Selinger Virginia A. Bell Joy Bott Dawn Cook-Ronninger Patricia A. Lynch Lars Conway Dawn & Brian Erdman Wendy Stove 7481 Windmill Drive 1680 Highway 5 7421 Windmill Drive 7495 Crocus Court 7460 Windmill Drive 2173 Brinker Street 7305 Galpin Blvd. 2117 Brinker Street 2131 Brinker Street 7541 Windmill Drive 7461 Windmill Drive 2059 Brinker Street 2059 Brinker Street 2043 Brinker Street 7508 Tulip Court 7521 Windmill Drive 7496 Crocus Court 7500 Windmill Drive 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. 7625 Metro Blvd. Suite 145 7480 Windmill Drive 7476 Brinker Street 7490 Tulip Court 7471 Tulip Court 7475 Crocus Court 4415 Fremont Avenue So, Mpls 55409 2091 Brinker Street 2103 Brinker Street 41 C Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Bob Generous pmsented the staff mport on this item. Scott: Questions or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: The grading situation, I guess I wasn't able to resolve it. Maybe it was in the staff report. Was all the grading going to be done at once or what's, how is this going to happen? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That's one of the items that we pointed out in our staff report. It was unclear whether it was all going to be under the first phase or if it was going to be two phases. We requested the applicant to fax a narrative explaining the phasing approach of the site grading. One other thing I'd like to add at this point, I guess Bob had mentioned contingencies about phase two happening. The other item would be storm water quantities... as well for Phase two. Ledvina: So do we know what the applicant is planning as it relates to grading or we're requesting that of them at this point? Hempel: We are requesting that. Scott: Bob, you mentioned that there are several options for zoning of this property and I sense that there's some prerogative that we have. You had mentioned that of those options you need to determine which is appropriate, or maybe you need to tighten that up a little bit. Generous: ...basically a policy decision. Does the city want to continue and have the standard 15,000 square foot lots ... go with a slightly higher density and have the twin homes which is still single family at least from our standpoint ... Or should we go and look at what the Highway 5 corridor study is saying for the future and... Scott: Can I ask you a question? With the, has the actual, the decided location of the access boulevard been made public record? Has it been surveyed, platted, located, etc, etc? Aanenson: Well we're going off the, what you recall the task force recommended the northern alignment. The Planning Commission recommended the northern alignment but Council recommended the southern alignment. ...hearing of the EA document has not been determined. Staff gave direction to the applicant to go ahead and use the northern 42 7 IPlanning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 I alignment... as an environmental assessment document. But we still believe as part of the design ... the northern alignment. This is approximately the second... Scott: So what do we have here? What is this proposed second phase? Is that, I know that both the northern and the southern alignments and this was kind of the Bluff Creek crossing section so how does what we see on this plan relate to. Aanenson: It reflects the alignment on the EA document on the northern alignment. Farmakes: Kate, can you explain when you're referring to the souther or northern alignment, are you referring to this particular piece of property, or are you talking about the several options that were available throughout the Bluff Creek corridor? Aanenson: ...this is the northern alignment that you're seeing ... and the southern alignment had the road... Both options again, high density is already on the comprehensive plan adjacent to Highway 5 and we haven't changed that as far as the Highway 5 document as far as... There still is talk about the Van de Veire property and other opportunities there that have not been resolved... There was other land use considerations being used for that one. Farmakes: My question is, in regards to the Council, you said that they made a recommendation for the southern alignment. Are you referring to this particular location of the property or for all the options that were available between here and TH 41? Aanenson: They went with the southern the entire route, is that your question? Farmakes: The entire route from Lake Ann to TH 41? Aanenson: Correct. The task force had the cross over... Farmakes: Including the property west of Galpin. Scott: So what we see on this plan is the northern alignment? Thank you. Mancino: I would also like to add, being a task force member, that in our task force guide book on 23, that the potential uses were, they said single family residential or multi family and the higher density abutting obviously Highway 5 so they could also see it single family. At the time and on Highway 5, just so you know, nobody talked about twin homes. That doesn't mean anybody was for or against but 1 think when everybody talked about single family, they were thinking about the traditional single family, detached. They weren't 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 thinking about twin homes when they thought about single family and that just has to do with the Highway 5 task force. I just wanted to make that clear. Farmakes: I think I was opposed. Mancino: To? Farmakes: To the way that this zone was laid out period. It was my opposition to getting a corridor... Mancino: For the multi family. Farmakes: Not that I object to... Audience: Could you speak up, we can't hear you. Farmakes: Nancy's referring to a task force that operated for a couple of years in regards to the Highway 5 task force, which is referring to recommendations as to an access road that followed, that would allow traffic to egress into the city without getting on the highway. Highway 5. Where that access road would be going, there was options for both northern and southern alignments. Southern being closer to the highway. Like a frontage road going closer to the highway and the northern route more similar to Lake Lucy Road or Kerber Boulevard where it goes up farther into the northern reaches. When we're talking about the theory about what type of property zonement would be along those routes, say to the south of the access road, to the north of the access road, what the buffers would be between medium and high density housing. My concern, being on the task force, when it was talking about the comment that Nancy made is that there were differing opinions in regards to the solutions for this, including a task force and the Commission here and what I'm hearing, the Council also. There are a lot of different factors that play here. My concern was that we do not get a corridor between Lake Ann and Highway 41 that's nothing but high density or medium density, townhouse type structures and that there's some diversity showing up. Typically aligned next to a highway you'll typically see these long endless large apartment, townhouse type buildings that you see on 169 for instance going north. And they go on for 5 or 6 miles. I'm hoping we don't see that here but. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification? We're not recommending ... but still it's low density according to the comp plan which was always 1 to 4 units per acre. We're not recommending medium. But within that we're saying there's three opportunities you have. And yet they're consistent with the comp plan... 44 IPlanning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: I think the issue is where the alignment road goes, anything to the south of that, in this case it's an outlot, what would happen there? At that point and for the property adjacent to it because that will somewhat dictate how that property develops. ' Aanenson: ...zoned high density. But the land use... comprehensive plan has guided that for high density. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? Or any other comments from staff. Harberts: I'd like to ask a question. I don't know exactly where I'm going with this but my understanding with this particular project is that it's going to force the Council to make a decision on the alignment. Are they ready to be forced into that decision? ' Scott: When is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet hearing scheduled? Aanenson: Well there are a number of things that have to happen. You have to decide whether or not... rezoning at this time, and you have to decide whether or not we're going to take utilities to the project. It's all predicated on the fact that you're ready to move forward with this plat. Then if we do get to that point, then the Council's got to decide whether or not that's what they want to do. Scott: As far as the road goes, the Phase I can be serviced with transportation and utilities ' from the Windmill Run subdivision so for the Phase I that's, these are never no brainers but that's an easier thing to get at because the access boulevard does not enter into it. Aanenson: Correct. So we there's some time ... if the road does shift... ' Scott: Okay. Harberts: To me though it's, well I guess as I look at this, I'd like to know where the road's at in terms of with the outlot, with how this maybe not so much with Phase I but Phase II or whatever. I guess if it was my preference, I'd like to know so I know what I'm looking at as a total picture there. I mean we talked a little bit about the struggle we had with Lake Susan and the piecemeal affect. That's what's happening so, that's my comments. Scott: Okay. Any other additions or. Mancino: Ditto. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Ditto, thank you. Anything else? Any other comments from staff? Questions from commissioners. Harberts: No, I'll be quiet for a while. Mancino: I just have one question for staff and that is, Bob you've given us the background here that we have 81% units are single family. We have as a category multi -family which is 9.6 and subsets of that category is twin homes which is 4% and townhouses which is 5.6%, right? What does that mean to me? Generous: That 81% of the homes. Mancino: And single family. Generous: Are single family detached. Mancino: But I mean do we have any planning as to where we want to be in those? Aanenson: Yes. The comprehensive plan, one of the goals is to have diversified housing opportunities for people who want single family. That don't want the large yard. Maybe first time home buyers. That's one of the goals of the comprehensive plan is to provide diversified housing styles. It's mentioned several times in the comprehensive plan. Farmakes: If it's mentioned, do we take percentage numbers saying that when Chan's filled up with 32,000 we have these percentage of multi family units? Mancino: Yeah. Generous: ...breakdown in structures. Farmakes: So do we have goals as to, or are they open ended goals? Generous: They're open ended. One of the goals is to provide affordable housing. Mancino: And again we haven't defined affordable housing. We haven't said how much. Generous: Well actually there are some definitions that we can use. Farmakes: I was wondering if we define that or that will be defined for us by a Minneapolis representative in the State Legislature. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Generous: It's being defined for us by the legislature. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Would the developer, the development team like to make a presentation? Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. Sometimes I forget. I represent Lars Conway, who is the owner of the property. We have ' with us this evening, if you'd like to direct any questions to them, Peter Beck who is our attorney and Jack Lynch who represents BRW... as an introduction. He's done, we just figured out today, 250,000 lots, which I think is pretty impressive. And they just completed a 25,000 ' lot subdivision in Phoenix. Isn't that amazing? And then Ross Fefercorn who is the developer and proposed developer of this site ultimately, with these country homes. I've passed out some sheets because the neighbors have been concerned about what is this and ' because of the process that we go through when we're just doing subdivisions, this is not a PUD and we feel that we fall underneath the category of your comprehensive plan, is 0 to 4 unit subdivision is a permitted use here. If you recall last year somebody, I believe in August of 1993, adopted a plan for this area. You are a party to that. That suggested that this area be increased to 8 units. And the road south of the new Highway 5 corridor be 12 unit density. We've been kind of floating around for the last 2 years while we're waiting for that ' plan to be adopted by the City Council. Because there's some urgency on our part to get rolling on this particular parcel, we decided that we'd stay within your current comprehensive plan guideline which was 0 to 4 units on this side of the road and 0 to 8 units on the south side of the road and if you look at your comprehensive plan you'll see, it says 8 units. 0 to 8. 0 to 4 and then the single family homes where these folks live, and that was the long range plan. If you also read your comprehensive plan you'll see that you have guidelines that have set up your goals as to what the multiple family unit mix should be in the city and historically Chanhassen has been well below their goal. I can't remember but I think we've got a copy of it because I was a part of that process about 7 or 8 years ago. This evening we realize there's two decisions that you may or may not make but we believe you have 120 days to make that decision because it's just a subdivision permitted under your rules and regulations. We are in fact trying to force the decision on the location of that road. We've told the Council that. We've waited two years for them to react to it. Because you, this body recommended the northerly route, that's what we're using. This is exactly what you suggested late last fall. That has not been as yet recommended or accepted by the Council. Now you're free to change your mind but this was the decision that you made. Also in that report you recommended 8 units to the north and 12 units to the south. Obviously because the Council hasn't done that, you're welcome to change your mind. I don't think you're welcome to change your mind on the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1987. I think that's there and based upon that, a lot of people have made decisions. As far as the staff report is concerned, we don't have any concerns with it other than items that we have planning on just ' 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 talking to them because we got an extended stay here as far as the public hearing is concerned so just for the record we have concerns about items 6, 7, 8, 19, 24, 25, and 27 and most of these are clarifications or technical issues. We will get together with the staff between now and then. I don't think we have to go into getting exact. Because I think a lot of this is just input and probably participation by the, well one of the things. We've got a number of calls from neighbors saying that they were promised that this area was zoned single family. Well in fact it is single family but it's 0 to 4 units per acre. We weren't part of that. We have never had a call from any neighbor. I don't think, Lars did you ever have any call from a neighbor? Did you ever have a call from a realtor? No. And so therefore any of that kind of conversation was not, we were not party to it. We believe that if anybody looked at the comprehensive plan, they would have said it a little bit differently. If they had followed the public hearings that were going on for 2 years on the Highway 5 corridor they would certainly say, well it could have been up to 8 units per acre so obviously whoever informed these folks that they were not following anything that you were doing. I don't know if anybody talked to any of you or the staff, they would know. I don't know. We are concerned however about how we buffer to these folks so in talking to Bob Generous he said one of the concerns was the transition. Not just by unit mix but also the transition by what does it look like. So we're going to show you some of the landscaping ideas that we have here now that may take care of that issue. My feeling though is that you will have to deal with this single family issue yourselves. I'm a resident of this particular community. I think we need more density just to get going but that's my own personal feeling ... but I'd like to have Jack Lynch just kind of go over the rationale behind the plat at this time. Jack Lynch: I'm not sure what I'm going to say, to tell you the truth. The piece we're dealing with is approximately 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and TH 5. At this time we're asking for rezoning of the northerly 35 acres. Basically an R4 zoning category. There is a discussion on the table about the access boulevard. Whether it should be in the northern alignment or the southern alignment. It's being presented and asked for, vote up or down on it so we can get on with life. So the property owner can get on with his life and develop the property. We have, as staff has said and as Brad has mentioned, worked with the staff on locating and going along with the northern alignment. There has also been discussion here tonight on the differences from the zoning codes, the comprehensive plan, the guide plans, the corridor studies. They all mention something that's just a little bit different from the... The corridor study that I think this body adopted though had in it's recommendations was a density gradation from single family to mid density to high density. I think the guide plan talks about mid density to low density. And certainly we've got an existing zoning, or existing subdivisions at low density. We took the corridor study and actually I think some of your comments at the beginning of the meeting today and we took a serious look at the high density, medium density and decided that was a little bit too high and backed off of that to the low density to potentially medium density. This outlot has not been yet decided whether 48 IPlanning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 it will be, exactly what it will be. But we did make a conscientious decision by the parcel north of the access boulevard and the subdivision to the north should not be a medium density ' product. It should be a low density product and that's what we're proposing. The other discussion item had to do with the landscaping. The initial submittal was a little light on the landscaping and we have gone back and taken a look at basically the landscaping was shown ' has to be increased by 50% and we would basically locate those additional plants and then do some more extensive berming along that northerly property line. Where we would propose a ' natural change from one density to the next density. Actually going from a 2 1/2 density product to a 3 1/2 density product, there's no difference. With that let's get into some of the discussion items and we'd be glad, all of us, to answer any questions. ' Scott: Questions or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, can you resolve the issue as it relates to the grading with the two phases? How is that going to happen? Jack Lynch: Quite frankly it doesn't make any difference to us. It's probably more economical if you grade it all at once. However, once it's graded all at once, the commitment is made that that product is going to go for the entire 92 lots, which is not a big deal. It's ' probably easier to grade it all at once. Ledvina: If your proposal to grade it all at once? ' Jack Lynch: Well it was, yes. The proposal was to grade it all at once but it was unsaid, unstated in the solution. ' Scott: What's the total pad size for each building? Jack Lynch: Like the square footage for the unit? Scott: Not the square footage but just the pad, size of the foundation pad. ' Jack Lynch: It's probably roughly about 3,000 square feet. J Y p Y g Y Ross Fefercorn: ...house pad is minimum size about 15 to 20 square. ' Scott: That's per side though, right? Ross Fefercorn: Yes. Per side. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: 3,000 total. Ross Fefercorn: Exclusive of the garage. If we go a minimum with double car garage and build a 2 1/2 acre car garage and build a 3 car garage as requested by the customers. Mancino: Mr. Lynch, are you going to be showing us architectural styles, etc? Jack Lynch: No. This is simply a standard subdivision request. Mancino: But part of the Highway 5 corridor is that we're supposed to be making some of our decisions on the quality that we've asked for under the Highway 5 corridor study. How are we going to make a determination on quality in this corridor if we don't know what you're going to... Brad Johnson: Single family is excluded. Mancino: No it isn't. Brad Johnson: That's what your guidelines say. Mancino: Well, that's if we go with single family. But if we went with multi family, it wouldn't be excluded. Generous: Right, and that's from... Aanenson: And again clarification, this is a standard subdivision. You're not doing a site plan review. It's not a PUD. It's not a multi family project where they're bringing in buildings... We haven't done one of these. We're all kind of ..but that's why I said there's other options. Mancino: But under land use, etc in Chapter 4, etc it doesn't exclude single family. It doesn't say it excludes it when it gives guiding philosophies, etc. Aanenson: ...ordinance itself that was adopted. Mancino: Oh, okay. Jack Lynch: There has not been a developer selected but those are some of the units that are being talked about. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: No, that's it. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, good. Anybody else from the development team? ' Brad Johnson: Well a couple questions have come up. We realize it will be about 2 weeks here so we have a slide presentation we can provide the neighborhood. There are 4 or 5 projects like this in the city ... how they will look... The average price range on these runs from $150,000 to $350,000.00 per side. Their square footage runs from about 1,700 square feet up to 4,500 square feet per side. They're not small units. ' Audience: Is that on this plan development or on other developments? ' Scott: I think what we'll do, we have a public hearing and we can have some back and forth, and I'm sure there will be some. Brad Johnson: I just wanted, because somebody asked me prices and that's the range. It's a very versatile product and probably the number one product like this was designed by... very few children type of product... They're the number one Reggie Award of all the homes in this ' classification. They won the number one award for quality and design. That's why we... Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, since we have a large group of people here and it is somewhat ' confusing because of the alignment considerations on Highway 5, the zonement, the rezonement application for options that we're looking at here may be something we should walk through once again. Looking at the possibilities. Again, this comprehensive plan is a ' guide and there is a difference of opinion as to which one of these routes should be used. Although we've recommended that, we did not recommend it unanimously and I believe that there's difference of opinion at City Council so the question being, it seems to be an ' important one, is what this property is rezoned for. Other than discussing the price of the housing units. It seems where do you start first. There may be some confusion on the part of ' the audience here with regards to the philosophy of what that zonement is going to be. Whether it's a PUD or whether it's low or medium density and where that alignment defines that being the buffer. In other words, if the southerly alignment has no developable property ' to the south of it, therefore there's a larger amount of property. The northern splits two pieces so there's a barrier. So anyway, there's several options to look at there and I think you touched on whether it was a PUD or a traditional development and that may need a little ' more clarification for the people in the audience. Scott: Yeah, I think it might help from a RSF, residential single family, which is the Windmill and Royal Oaks, basically what that is, by ordinance a developer can come in and 1 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 cut the property up subject to the proper street width and so forth. Can divide the property up into 15,000 square foot lots. Put a house on there that has a 60 x 60 foot pad, which would include the garage and a deck and so forth, and they can build those all day long and that's the minimum from the ordinance standpoint. In some instances, I don't know if you're familiar with the Song property. Lots of trees. Lots of terrain differences and that's where we like to apply a PUD or planned urban development. What that allows us to do is that allows us to be more flexible with the ordinances but for very specific purposes. For example we had the Song property, that I mentioned, had a tremendous amount of mature trees. Extremely old so basically what we did is we allowed the developer to allow smaller street widths and allowed them slightly greater grades for the streets to preserve some of the trees, which obviously was a benefit for them because they can sell their property for money, etc, etc. but then it allowed us to follow one of our guides which is to preserve as much of the natural terrain or the natural vegetation as possible. So a planned unit development is a way that if a property has some significant topographical or vegetational, I'll make up a word, we use that. So those are two options that we have here. As far as the R4, which is the one I'm not as familiar with, basically what that would allow you to do, if you could envision this, is that it looks as if these lots are approximately, if you took the two lots together it looks like they're what, 20,000 square foot. Okay, so we have two lots but the homes are touching so basically what it looked like, if you didn't know that it was two families, basically you're looking at a home that's going to be approximately, I think they're anywhere from 3,000 square feet to conceivably 9,000 square feet. And if you're talking about the 15,000 square feet a side to the 4,500 square feet per side. So those are basically the 3 zoning options. Now you've heard some talk about a Highway 5 corridor study. You've heard about the comprehensive plan. And then other guide documents. Basically what the comprehensive plan is that every decade the citizen task force, the Planning Commission, the City Council get together and take a look at the city. All the undeveloped property and try to say alright, what do we want our city to look like. Where do we want to have multiple family? Where do we want to have commercial property and so forth so that our city develops in an orderly fashion. Well the comprehensive plan, these are all plans and things are not cast in concrete by any means but we want to have a plan that we have to present to the Met Council for approval so they know what we're trying to do with our property. That's basically what the comprehensive plan is. The Highway 5 task force was a study that lasted for over 2 years of which Commissioner Mancino and Commissioner Farmakes were involved with, where we figured we had this highway. It's going to have an impact on people who drive through our community. People who live here. What do we want them to see from the highway relative, because we got involved with building materials. We got involved with views to see natural amenities like Bluff Creek. So hopefully this is quite eye opening. There's been a lot of work been done on this but once again, these are guides. These are plans and we tend to, in this instance we're focusing on a particular piece of property. There's a known quantity. We know what your area looks like. It's zoned residential single family. We know what 52 IPlanning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Highway 5 looks like. We know what Galpin. Because of the City Council not acting on the alignment, we don't know exactly where that access boulevard is going to be. So where we're at right now is, because of, and you may have heard this earlier today. Because of some misinformation or lack of information that was printed in the newspaper, this is not considered to be an official public hearing, which means that the Planning Commission ' cannot make any recommendations for the City Council. So what we're going to do at the public hearing is to get neighborhood input. I sense, and the other commissioners sense that one of your major concerns is the change in density from your development into what this ' may be and just to let you know, the Planning Commission, at least I've been here for 2 years, what we have consistently done is buffered not necessarily with just vegetation but ' buffered with a more gradual change of density inbetween two "dissimilar" areas. So if that is a major, may I just ask a question. How many of you are primarily concerned with the difference in density between your development and this proposed development? Mostly, ' okay. Okay. So I think that point is understood quite well by us and what, I'm not trying to discourage anybody from speaking at the public hearing but if maybe one or two people could articulate that for the public record, we'd appreciate it. If there's some other things, and that's why we have these because the developer is using their, in good faith coming up with here's something that we believe fits with these three different documents that overlap and underlap and so I mean in their situation, they're making their best efforts to do what they think is ' appropriate. Obviously when there's development next door to anybody, you're concerned so this is the way the process works and I think what we should do, with that in mind, is could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? ' Mancino: So moved. ' Harberts: I thought there wasn't a public hearing. Scott: Well. ' Conrad: Let's just listen for input. Let's have the public hearing next time. ' Scott: Would someone like to speak? Step up to the podium. Give us your name and your address and then let us know, as best you can, what's on your mind. Kevin Joyce: My name's Kevin Joyce. I live with my wife, Joan and 3 children at 2043 Brinker Street which is in Windmill Run development. My property abuts the proposed Lake Ann Highlands development. At the end of last year, 1993, my family was investigating ' home sites in the southwest metro area. We narrowed our choices down to Chanhassen. We were very interested in the Windmill Run development that was being developed by Rottlund Homes. In researching our purchase, one of the main criteria was the type of neighborhood 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 that we'd be raising our family in. I went to City Hall the week of December 27th. I'm not exactly sure of the date but it was that week right after Christmas. I met with Bob Generous of the Chanhassen planning staff. We discussed in detail the area just south of the property I was interested in purchasing. He showed me a color coded land use map that showed the Windmill Run property as SFH I believe designated. He never showed me any comprehensive plan. There was no zoning done on the property just south of this that we're discussing tonight. I asked him what was planned for that property and Bob said, similar housing to Windmill Run. Single detached houses. I asked would they be similar in value to the houses built in Windmill Run. Bob said he couldn't guarantee the value of the homes but the lot sizes would be the same. Minimum 15,000 square feet or 3 SFH houses per acre. I had a witness to this meeting and he's willing to file an affidavit that this discussion took place and this was the content of that discussion. When we received a notice of the development, we were obviously very upset and wondered if we had made a mistake. We had misunderstood what was said at that meeting. However talking with our fellow neighbors, we found out that most of them were either directly or indirectly told the same thing. SFH. Single detached houses. I think it proves that there was some misinformation here given by the action of our neighbors, and we have quite a few of them here today. That they have some concerns about this particular development. I feel we were misled by the City of Chanhassen. I feel there's been a gross misrepresentation by the planning staff of Chanhassen against my family. My family based a large portion of our decision to purchase this home in Windmill Run in Chanhassen on the information that was given by the Planning staff. Many of our neighbors based their decisions on this as well. I feel Chanhassen's responsibility to us as new residents to live up to the commitment they made to us when we were told the property to the south of Windmill Run would be used as a continuation of our existing neighborhood and that's how I feel. I feel very strongly about this. I think there was gross misrepresentation here. That's all I have to say. There are other people in this group who have the same problem. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra and I live and own about 50 acres directly to the east of this subject property. Have you got something you can put on the screen there that shows the site plan? Generous: Subdivision? Mike Gorra: Just the whole site. Well, no. That shows the... First I'd like to say that I don't have any objections to what the proposal is on Mr. Conway's property. The only reason I'm here is to protect the interest of my property and if there's something that affects it, I want to know what's going on. First of all I really don't think that there's any confusion to what the 54 IPlanning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Council wants as far as the land because on March 28th of this year they voted on Resolution ' #94-40 unanimously to approve the southern alignment. And my conversations subsequently with the councilmen since then indicate that they haven't really changed their mind on that. Now maybe the staff has over ruled the City Council, I don't know but what are we doing ' looking at a plot plan here that shows the northern alignment instead of what the City Council recommended. That's my first question. No answer? Scott: I don't have an answer, no. Mike Gorra: Okay. So then staff did over rule City Council. ' Aanenson: ...considered the possibility that the northern alignment may be the preferred alignment. They've had several work sessions and the final alignment has not been selected. ' That was an informational meeting for the EAW, or excuse me, for the Environmental Assessment. The final public hearing with the final recommendation has not been held. ' Mike Gorra: What was Resolution #94-40 then? Aanenson: They did make a recommendation south but they've also. Mike Gorra: So what's the confusion? I mean as far as the public announcements, the only announcement from the City Council is this resolution that I'm speaking of, is that correct? Aanenson: That's correct. ' Mike Gorra: Okay, so as far as we know that's the way it ... so what's the confusion? Aanenson: As far as what's on the public record, that's correct. But there have been other ' discussions that you may not be aware of that the Council has held that they may consider going to the north. Mike Gorra: Okay, which brings me to my next question. Now this road on the south side of the development that ends in a dead end at the property line. Is that correct? ' Generous: Yes. ' Mike Gorra: Is there any guarantees from the developer that this road is going to be continued to the east? How can you act on a plot plan or a development when you don't know if the road's going to go any farther? How can you ask them to build a road when you ' don't know if it happens,south there or if you can go farther? 1 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Generous: Well we have to provide access to adjoining properties all the time and this would be providing access to your property. Mike Gorra: Yes, but I've indicated that I am proposing a golf course on this property and it doesn't include a road at that location, which is the northerly access. And I've also indicated to the City Council that we're going to have to have a court hearing and let a judge decide if the City has a need for a road there when they have an alternative which many people think are better, cheaper and will look better in the long run. So there's no way that you can stand here and guarantee to these developer that that road is going to be where you propose it is. So how can you have it on the plan at this time? My third question is the drainage. Have you studied the drainage on the proposed development? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Yes we have. Mike Gorra: Where does the water on the west side of this development drain to? Hempel: The west side of the development? It will continue to maintain the drainage that exists today for the most part. Mike Gorra: But will there be more water draining onto someone else's property than there is today? Hempel: It will maintain the pre -developed runoff rate. As with any type of development, the amount of runoff will increase with the amount of hard surface coverage. However, to maintain the level of flood protection and maintain the level of discharge rate, or the pre - developed runoff rate. In addition we will be incorporating the city's comprehensive storm water management plan to ultimately serve water quality and quantity... in this area. Mike Gorra: Okay but, what you're saying in the long run is this water's going to be running onto someone else's property. Hempel: As it does today. Mike Gorra: Yes. But at a greater rate. Hempel: Not at a greater rate. The same rate. Mike Gorra: Do you have those computations so I can. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: We do not have those at this time. That is a restriction we impose upon the developer to maintain that rate. Mike Gorra: But you have no computations. Hempel: We typically do not have computations at this stage of preliminary plat. Mike Gorra: Well all I'm asking the Planning Commission, if you're going to plan something, plan something that might work and go by what the, first of all go by what the City Council recommends. At least they're the elected officials and they're supposed to do the recommendations around here. Secondly is take action on a plan where the road, where you can guarantee the developer that he's going to be able to extend his road and make it work. You can't do that at this time. Nobody can because we all know that when you go to court, nobody knows what's going to happen in court until it happens. And the third thing I want to be assured of is the drainage on this property. It's not allowed, you can't, everybody knows when you develop a piece of property there's going to be more hard surface. The water isn't going to soak into the ground so it's going to run someplace. I want to know for sure that this excess water isn't going to be running onto my property. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Mike Perry: My name is Mike Perry. I live at 7521 Windmill Drive with my wife, my 2 year old and also my Golden Retriever and we came here from out of state so I wasn't able to review a lot of the proposed plans and ordinances but one thing that does happen when I relocate, and I've relocated 6 times in the last 12 years. My company takes care of a lot of that sort of thing for me. So they ask a lot of questions of the city and the planning and I also try to do some questions and some phone calls and that sort of thing. And one of the things that we came up with was, we were going to be adjacent to development that was very similar to the one that we were investing in. And this is our second home, just like many other people. It's their second and for some people third home. And one of the things, we had a get together last Sunday and I guess one of the best testimonials that I can offer this council here is there was an individual that moved from out of state, just like I had. He moved from the New Jersey area and he was faced with the similar type of development and I think it cost him, and correct me some people if I'm incorrect, that were at our Sunday meeting, but I think it cost him when a lower cost. Or I shouldn't say a lower cost but a lower quality development went in next to his property and then he had to resell it, it cost him a good $50 to $75,000.00 is what he quoted at that meeting. I guess my point is, if you're going to plan out a large area, and I've lived in some developments where they had all the way from $100,000.00 home, and I should really correct myself. All the way from apartments to million dollar homes. All the way from the stretch from $100,000.00 all the 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 way to million dollar homes. It was done in a very, very quality fashion. And when the developer made his, even his first proposals, it had very, very good testimonials of other properties. It also had very, very good architectural drawings, similar to the one that we saw earlier tonight where it was a nice planned out project. And I think that this project is going to be done, and done well, we're first going to have to determine for this general area what we really want it to look like when we grow up. I can take you to Houston, I can take you to Dallas, I can take you to New Mexico and I have areas where I could show you where it's one steam of apartments or townhouses right down a major corridor. Something they didn't plan 10 years ago in the early 80's in Houston but certainly in the 90's, that's what they saw. And they saw a lot of developers that maybe had some very, very good expertise in commercial but then all of a sudden decided to go into residential. And then when things got tough and Kate and I were discussing, you said interest rates went up, all of a sudden these developments aren't occupied. And that's another thing. One thing you have is you have a very, very good diamond here. You have a very, very good diamond and it's called Chanhassen and I think you need to polish. Polish that diamond and polish it in the right way. And that's really all I have to say. I have some concerns about the overall planning and how this whole thing is going to funnel down together. I have concerns about the buffer area. I'm not seeing a lot of things that I've seen in other quality developments. I don't see any ponds that would keep the natural wildlife within the particular area. I'm not quite sure what's going to happen with the wetlands. I don't think it's a 100 year wetlands as they call it down in Louisiana but certainly it is a wetlands. What's going to happen with that? So I think there's a lot of open ended questions here and hopefully we'll find out more and more what's going to happen with this development. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Joan Joyce: Hi. I have a very sore throat. I'm surprised I can even talk right now but I'll do the best I can. My name is Joan Joyce. I live on 2043 Brinker Street in Windmill. Putting aside the fact that we definitely, without a doubt have grossly been misled with regard to what we've been told by the City Hall here, I would also like to point out that in terms of coming into this community and looking at what potentially could exist here, in this area, it's shocking to me to even think that you can have two residential streets parallel to each other that are not first time homes. Probably second time homes because they are custom homes, upper bracket. Not million dollar homes but surely none of us are purchasing our first home here. This is second or third. It's amazing to think that something like a change of housing, such as these twin homes, can exist so closely to a small smattering of 35 homes. 35 homes is not a neighborhood. It's a small group of the start of a neighborhood. Again, we purchased expecting this to be a big, nice neighborhood in which our children could ride their bikes down the street a couple of blocks here and there. That's definitely not what is going to happen here. Obviously what I see is you're going from single family homes to higher 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 density twin homes to apartments to townhomes. I mean and throw anything else in there to ' this big hodge podge unplanned area, it absolutely has no cohesiveness with regard to overall planning. I don't understand how something like this could even be considered. Again, I think back to how this whole issue started when the zoning was changed from whatever it ' was to allow the single family housing that now we live in. In my opinion, the die was cast at that point. That was zoned single family housing and that's what it's become and it doesn't make logical sense to me, after such a small start on this neighborhood, to change it to ' something else and end up with a different sort of living with regards to the people that are there. It's a different lifestyle. It's not the same sort of neighborhood and that's all I have to say, thank you. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. ' John Hennessy: I'm John Hennessy. I live at 7305 Galpin. Bob, could you put that on. Could you point out my property. I own the 3 acres right on that section. I would ask that if we're putting some screens, that the developer would screen with vegetation, trees around my ' property on the north and the east side there. And the other question I have was, I notice one of the internal streets comes right through my northeastern tip. It looks like the pavement is right on my property line. If the pavement is on my property line, then the right-of-way is ' well into my property, is that not correct? Scott: Yeah, what would be the grading impact? We are looking at pavement here, right? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer that. That's road right-of-way. ' Scott: Okay. And what would be the grading impact? How much beyond the road right-of- way does grading impact? Hempel: We're not proposing to intrude upon Mr. Hennessy's property with the grading of the street. Based on the grading plan. Scott: Okay. ' John Hennessy: That is where the... Hempel: Correct. The curb would be about 14 to 10 feet away from the property. ' John Hennessy: And then I would ask that storm water be reviewed very carefully because... land around there, from about 200 feet to the northeast of my land, it all kind of washes down 1 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 so if we have 2 1/2 to 3 inches of rainfall in a 4 hour, 5 hour period, I've got a nice stream running right across my driveway... Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Mark Pryor: Mark Pryor. I live on 7541 Windmill Drive which would abut the property. And just, I have to admit I'm fairly naive with this area. It's difficult for a homeowner to kind of get the grasp on this. We did look into it and I took some offense to some of the remarks made earlier about not knowing what was going on. In listening to the discussion here today, I have a couple concerns in that there were representations made by the city to a number of myself and my neighbors about what was going to be there. And I can see, in just listening to the discussion, where it came from. I've heard a number of people use the term low density single family housing in the same breath. In fact I think Mr. Scott did the same thing. That's what we were told. Scott: Well I didn't. I used single family but it's been kicked around, low density and it's 0 to 4 units and you don't, when someone tells you low density and it's not followed by the 0 to 4, you can assume what you want. Mark Pryor: That's representations that were made to us and that's the kind of thing that we heard and that's what we looked into and that's what we relied on when we made our purchases and it's a real problem for me, when we go to the city and inquire as to what's going on and get this representation and then when development comes up and when we come to the meetings and they say well, you know that's not really what it is. It's low density but it also includes twin homes. We didn't tell you that because we lumped it all together. But that's a real concern I have because I think these representations made were not clear and I think it's real clear in the discussions why that happened and I think the Planning Commission is the ... to look at that in terms of planning in your plan. Not only your plan but also for representations made to, not only those who are new folks but other potential buyers of what's going to be in certain places and what kind of tiering and what kind of neighborhoods are you going to have in single family and a little more density and those kinds of things. I think the commission's got to look very closely at that. There's been some problems in the past which are coming to light now which I think ... look at very closely. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Pat Lynch: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Pat Lynch and I live at 7475 Crocus Court, which is part of the Windmill Run development. I'm up way past my bedtime tonight to emphasize how darn important this is. And I guess to restate it in a little different way, kind of the expectation piece that's of serious importance to me. What .c Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 everyone talked about in terms of the misrepresentation is that we're not all dummies. We're not all stupid and when we ask those questions, we believed those answers and we believed the answers in their simplest, easiest to understand form because we don't know the initials. And if you're not familiar with the acronyms, you're saying does that mean single family houses? They say yeah, that's what it is and you say, well that makes sense. So people made what they thought were conscience decisions. People also didn't take the time to try to find things out and for the most part that many people can't be that stupid, I don't think. In terms of referencing did we pay attention over 2 years. Most of us have been here for 6 months. That development is about that new so to assume, in some of the references that we would have been somehow rather illiterate to the plan, you can only ask the question when looking at it but if you haven't been a party to that during that period of time, it's reasonable to assume that you may not have had that familiarity if people have only been here since April. The other part of it I guess that's of critical importance to most of us is that what we had assumed in the conversations, and we received as many answers as well what we really need is affordable homes. Well $300,000.00 isn't affordable homes. And other people said, were not talking about affordable, we're just talking about the spreading of a corridor in an orderly fashion and what it appears to us is that it's not an orderly fashion and what our expectation and what our hope is that there be given some consideration to that. Particularly in light of how much research so many people did. It isn't as if we're in some ways looking at it and saying we're not expecting to have neighbors. Everybody's assuming that we're going to have neighbors. We're hoping the neighbors are the neighbors that you said would be there, which is how this is how the neighborhood would progress up to Highway 5. And the other part of it that's of critical importance is the roadway piece. When people talk about using Windmill Drive as the construction road and when people talk about using Windmill Drive as the other access for emergency vehicles, that's a serious issue. Windmill Drive is not the kind of street that you'd probably look at and say, that's the one that you'd target for that kind of usage. Our hope is that as you listen to us, you're not listening to a group of neighbors who stayed up past their bedtime to simply be nay sayers to a project. We expect to have neighbors. We're hoping that the Planning Commission understands what our neighborhood is looking for, thought we were promised and would be happy to welcome to the neighborhood. And we'd certainly love to be a part of the process of planning too because we weren't around for the other 2 years of discussions so, thank you. Scott: Well you are now. You are now. Good, anyone else. Well since this isn't a public ' hearing, I don't have to close it. Anyway, I think this would be an appropriate point in time for the commissioners to discuss their thoughts and then after we get done with that, we won't be making any recommendations but it will be, this is what, we're talking the 16th. We're going to be exercising our stamina again on this. Okay. You're it. 11 61 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Well we've had, over the 3 years that I've been here, we've had many situations such as this where residents will come in. Into our room here to oppose developments based on zoning and it always is a difficult situation and I don't know, you know what happened with the city in terms of the discussions that were had with staff and I will personally be looking into that a little bit and seeing exactly where we're at. But I think from my perspective at this point, I have to look at it in accordance with the comprehensive plan and what we're looking at there. And again we are trying to make a transition from the Highway 5 corridor and we have planning right next to the corridor that allows for a more dense type residential situation and that has to be transitioned back to single family. And the single house per lot situation. I think that that's a tough thing to do but I think with the efforts associated with a transition between the northerly extent of this development and the previous developments with landscaping and setbacks and those types of techniques, that those transitions can be made and I've seen that work many times. So I am somewhat confident that that will be able to make this work and work together. I have a few specific comments for staff on the plan as it's laid out in front of us tonight. Looking at Units, and I'd like you to take a look at this Bob if you could. Looking at the back of Units 5 and 6 for Block 3 and 3 and 4, Block 3. There's a. Scott: On page? Ledvina: Well the preliminary grading plan. It shows that 5 and 6 is essentially a walkout and there's approximately 40 feet between the back walkout and the side of that other building into 3 and 4, Block 3. So if you'd just look at that area there. Maybe we can do something with that. It looks a little tight in there. You see where I'm talking about? Okay. There was one other comment that I wanted to make and I didn't make it. As it relates to these units that will be on the north side of this development. Typically with our single family home scenario we can have buildings that are on the order of 15, well it's 20 feet apart essentially. 20 feet from corner to corner. Building corner and with this development you should note that the buildings will actually be along that north side 75 feet to, in some instance 120 feet apart. So I think that's. Mancino: Like where Matt? Ledvina: All along this north face. If you look at the separation distances between the buildings, we're looking at roughly 70 to 120 feet apart. So I think people are thinking these buildings are squashed together and they really aren't. I mean because they are together, you know, the two units are together, you have a lot more side yard area and things like that and I think actually that's, that can be a very nice feature to have. The buildings are not in there compactly so I think that's another thing that can help in terms of the transition. So but as it relates to Units 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 on Block 3, I think ... taking a look at. Also looking at ' Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 the grading plan, I know the developer has worked to maintain some character but I think ' some additional efforts can be made with the grading. I don't know, where are we in terms of street slopes Dave? Have you look at that? That center road. ' Hempel: Street ... off of. Ledvina: Okay. So they're closing in on about the maximum grades? Okay. And I think ' after that, you know recognize that the developer has done pretty much what he can in terms of dealing with that. That's the extent of my comments at this point. Scott: Good, Nancy. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Excuse me, Matt I have a couple of questions for you as the grading. When I got out of my car and walked at the dead end street that goes into this from Windmill Run. I went up and stood up on a slope that was directly south of that street and it was high. I mean I was standing there and I could see McGlynn's, I could see you know south. What's happening there? I mean I can see the road's going to go through. Are we going to be loping off a lot of the rollingness? When I.look at this I see a lot of 990's to, I see lots of 990's in this Phase I up to 1,000 so I see a 10 foot difference in elevations and that's about it. Through this whole Phase I. Ledvina: Well they have to, obviously they have to match the grade at the existing Windmill Road there. But a lot of, actually there's a lot of filling that's going on. Well let me take a look here. I guess I hadn't noticed that specifically in terms of what they're doing. It roughly drops to about 980 and then it goes back up essentially so there's a couple of hills in there. A couple of 10 foot hills in that road before it terminates at the access boulevard so. Mancino: Okay. So you're saying they are, to me it looks like they're doing quite a bit of flattening. Ledvina: Well they are but they're generally speaking they're attempting to maintain that general topography there because it does go, the top of the hill goes to a little valley area and then it goes back up and then it goes back down again. You know from north to south. So I don't know. And in those areas, you're right, it's pretty high and they are working at some pretty steep grades over in that area so. Mancino: Well I'm wondering though, the public view that we're going to have from Highway 5, that was one of the things that we discussed... Ledvina: Right, with Oak Ponds, yeah. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Yeah, what's that going to do and if you look in Chapter 8 of the Highway 5 study guide. Excuse me, of people who don't have that Bob on Figure 8.4, I mean we clearly say in this area preserve steep slopes. Is that, I mean I know the precedent has been set by City Council that we're not really preserving steep slopes in our subdivisions. First hand on that but do we care? Generous: Well yes we care. It's how much of it do you need to preserve? Do you have to keep every knoll out there? Mancino: No, I think there was actually one right here, if you look on Figure 8.4. It wasn't like the entire, they weren't saying the entire area but a particular high point that one might say is a feature on this particular land. Generous: That's where they're reducing the peak down to 12 feet and they're shifting near the top of that contour, they're shifting over this... coming down from that. So they are taking out the highest point but then they're having, from that point to the intersection they're having a 10 foot elevation change. I don't know. How much do you have to preserve to get these... Mancino: Is it still steep? Generous: Not as steep, no. Mancino: And what percentage are you taking off, 30%? Hempel: I guess one clarification, what do you consider steep? What percentage is steep? We reviewed a plat earlier tonight where we had retaining walls with 3:1 slopes for back yards. Those are steep. Mancino: Well whoever wrote this put down steep slopes and it was one of the things that we talked about on Highway 5 so if we're not going to do anything about it, let's not talk about it. Hempel: As Bob mentioned, there's one knoll on Block 3 there. Lots 9, 10 and 11 that would be reduced by about 12 feet. The rest of the subdivision will maintain it's rolling character with the 7% street grades. If you wish we can grant a variance and increase to 10% street grade... From an engineering standpoint, I wouldn't recommend it. I don't see the compromise as it's worth it. There's not trees to be saved. There's not wildlife to be saved as a result of it. They're still maintaining the rolling integrity of the piece of property. The curvalinear streets are going to magnify that as well. There is a ... difference of about 1010 with the existing Windmill Run street is. And when you get down to the southeast corner 64 1 IPlanning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 ' where the frontage n e road is, the elevation there is almost 960 so there's a significant grade difference between the two. From the north end to the south end. Mancino: Yeah, that's over a pretty big expanse. If we do 10% grades then on the south slope, much like we've done it on others so there wouldn't be a problem with, in the winter ' time. ' Hempel: Winter times it would be exposed to the winter time... freezing conditions. Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to see some grade changes in the street if we can maintain. It was ' significant during this Highway 5 study to put it on our figures here and yeah, I think it's important. I think that Mike Gorra brought up a very good question, discussion point and that is, we have certainly made a recommendation to the City Council on where the road goes. ' One of the reasons for even to me, at least I was told the Highway 5 task force was to be proactive. Was to get out there ahead of developers and say, let's do some good planning and I would like to see the City Council now, we have done our job at the Planning Commission ' and made our recommendations. I would like to see the City Council also come to a decision on where this north access boulevard goes. Because it will greatly affect what happens here. ' Farmakes: Are you clarifying that when you're saying the north access boulevard goes? Are you clarifying your preference? ' Mancino: Where they would like north of Highway 5. Okay. No, I'm not saying whether it should go north or south. I'm just saying north of Highway 5 I would like to see City Council right now make that decision. We've got development out here ready to go and. Scott: You've got to tap the microphone 3 times before you say that. ' Harberts: Mr. Chair? ' Scott: Yes. Harberts: If it's okay I'd like to make my comments. I have to catch an early flight tomorrow morning so I'd like to take my leave then. Scott: Good... Harberts: I'm not advocating for or against the development at this point. I'm certainly a proponent, if you understand some of the politics that are going on in the region in terms of what's coming out of the. Metropolitan Council, that they certainly will have a greater amount 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 of power that the legislature has dealt to them through the last session. And what I'm seeing here is far better than what I'm hearing down at the Met Council in terms of what they would like to see out here. I think Matt brought up a very good point, and I think it would be in the best interest of the developer if they would perhaps take a step further in terms of their presentation of what the impact really is or is not because when you look at this, when you look at the two lots that they average each lot perhaps, the average is somewhere between 10 and 12,000 per unit. You've got two lots together. That exceeds 15,000. That exceeds the lots on the other side. You've got a 3,000 square feet pad, as I understood, as the total unit which is about the size I would guess of a standard home in that type of price range on almost double a regular lot size. I think, I don't know. But that's what the numbers tell me based on my experience of sitting here for the last 2 years. Boy, that's not so bad is it? But I don't know that if we have a display model or something like that rather than all these lines or something, it might be a little easier to see that a little bit more comfortable. I like, now don't hold me to my words. I don't know if I'm saying these right. I like, I'll say a more enhanced density. I can remember sitting here with Windmill Run and talking about this is what we think is going to happen, because this is what's been happening in the city and I believe in the staff comment, you said this is the first time this has ever come to us. Somebody is challenging us or testing us in terms of what the code is saying and they're well within their right to do it. Personally I'd rather see this as a PUD. It gives us a little bit more flexibility in terms of putting some more of the pieces in there that we like. Maybe a little bit more green space. There's a lot of houses in here. There's going to be a lot of people here. A little bit of green space. Kids riding bikes, things like that. I guess if this was a perfect world, I'd say put a PUD on the whole thing. Ladd tells me, well they can do this. Well okay, fine but I'd still like to see a PUD. If the world was perfect, I'd like to see the Council tell us yes, this is what it is. The southern alignment. Yes, we've got it in policy but anybody knows with a governing policy, they can change their mind. This is going to force them to get on the fence here or get off on one of the sides here. I'd rather be able to be able to look at the whole thing rather than to piece meal. Sometimes this world isn't all that perfect. So we have to live and try to do our best job. We certainly you know, we certainly if we had our crystal balls we'd certainly make this a perfect world but we try and that's all we can do. I think the input is good. I think it's great. There's some very good points brought up. I would like to see building materials. Yes, you don't, the developer does not have to, or builder, whatever it is. They don't have to show this to us but come on folks. We've got some residents here that have a concern about what the values of their homes are going to be. Is it so wrong to maybe go that extra step further because that makes our job a little easier? Like I said, I don't think this is such a bad, this is really a better density when you put it in that perspective, than if it was a single family house. I think. I don't know. I'm guessing. I can't tell a whole lot from lines on a piece of paper so I guess, since this is public input, we have an opportunity to see this, I would just encourage the developer to maybe go the extra step to help everyone becomes a little bit comfortable with what this is. I N. ' Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 remember sitting here with Windmill Run expecting yes, we'll see 15,000 square feet lots and a house and so on and so forth but you know, this is well within the code. You know staff lives and breaths this every day and this is what they expected to see. We've never had one of these. Whoa, someone read the book and this is what they can do. There's nothing wrong 1 with that but yeah, I'd like to see a little bit more green. I'd like to see a little bit more open space. My comment though to Bob is, in Block 3, 16 and 15, I believe the way that pad is proposed facing the road, that that's going to be where their access point is ... from sight lines, ' things like that and the amount of traffic. Is that such a good way for the cars to be backing out? I don't know. That's my, that's a challenge there. I'm not a real big proponent of, in the cul-de-sacs. The islands, sure they look nice but from a public safety and from maintenance ' and stuff like that, I don't know if this is a homeowners association as the last one. They didn't go into that. I don't know. Then they're the ones that have to wrestle with it but if it's a city, we don't need to raise our taxes anymore just to go around some pretty things. Those ' are my comments. We're going to see this back. Like I said, the way this is sitting right now, what I can tell or can't tell, I'd rather see a PUD just to, in a sense make sure we're meeting the criterias of Highway 5. Things like that but like I said, it looks okay but you ' know maybe the developer or builder or Brad, maybe you can give us a little bit more information or renditions of what we're looking at because this isn't so bad but when you look at all these blue lines and stuff, I'd get nervous too. Brad Johnson: Can we rent a bus and we'll see? ' Harberts: Sure. I'll give you a deal. With that, that's my comments and I'm sorry but my flight leaves real early in the morning. ' Scott: Have a safe trip. Harberts: Thanks. Scott: Ladd. ' Conrad: Nothing to add. ' Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I'll make my comments as brief as possible ... I guess I see this as the cart before the horse here because of the alignment issue. There are people that talked from a standpoint of it has to get the City Council off the stick if they throw a proposal at them with an alignment the opposite of what they voted on. I don't know if I buy that exactly. I would ' like to remind however the people in the audience here that this property is currently zoned ' 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 agricultural estate I believe and that's important to bear in mind. What you have here, what people are talking are proposals. You have the opportunity to contact your elected officials and let them know that you disagree with that. For those of you who've just moved into the area, been here 6 months or so, you're probably not familiar with some of the planning and so on that's been involved, or the forces that are involved. For some of you that are out of state. The Met Commission of the people's Met Council that people are talking about is a governing body that takes the 95 communities that make up the metro area and basically doles out and plans money for things like effluent collection and improvements of utilities and so on. These things are very expensive and they have a way of controlling development. The inner city obviously, and the powers that be within the city would like to see city density all the way out. They'd like to see as many people as possible placed per square foot so they don't have to pay as much for utilities and sewage collection. So there are those forces at work that would like to see high density and nothing but because it would be cheaper for them. There are other forces at play out here of families who have owned farm property here for generations and they're selling off because of taxation and it's time to cash in. There are developers here who would like to have certain ways that they can develop a piece of property where they make more money and you have those forces at work and then you have your investment in a single family zone where you're concerned about the value of your property and what goes next to it. Getting back to the original point I made. That property currently is zoned agricultural estate and the process, it's still open. It has to be voted on to change the zonement and so your City Council will get that on their agenda at some point in time and the process is, is that you call up and complain and say you don't want it. If you have, you're part of that process. You're part of that pressure. I did not go along with the commission and voted for the southerly alignment between Lake Ann and Galpin. Then I went with the northern route. I think that there are Minutes available to you if you care to read that but I think that will be a deciding factor of whether or not this is a PUD or it's a regular development. I believe that there is more opportunity to buffer that development and your homes with a PUD and I believe with the southerly alignment there'd be more property available there to deal with rather than to compartmentalize the zonement. And I, if I make comments on this development, I kind of feel like I'm falling in line with what I see as sort of a directional phase to the northerly alignment. I'm not going to do that. I think that that's wrong. I also think that if the City Council in work sessions are discussing this issue, it should be in the public's eye based on the amount of work that went into it. Particularly if it's counteracting public hearing information that they voted on. I don't know what the particular city rules are on that but it seems that I wasn't aware that they were considering re - voting on that or were in session somewhere on that. Scott: Nor was I. 68 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: But there are, depending on how you say this, there is a consensus that we were ' all in line and agreement with this and I know city staff adamantly feels that the northerly alignment is the correct way to go. ' Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is that whether or not it goes to the north or to the south, it's guided single family. Regardless of where the road goes and this is one option underneath the single family. Whether it goes north or south. It's guided single family. 1 to 4 units per ' acre. So what you have to decide is whether or not you want it to go single family, PUD or 1 to 4. That's what you have to struggle with. ' Farmakes: Yes, but I think what the point here is, what we're talking about and where it gets lost is what is the end result of what we want to see. And we're talking about this road and it's alignment. We're talking in some cases the end result of the ability to develop property ' and the options to develop a large amount of property as an option. A golf course for instance was named or townhouses or four plexes or where that road goes is going to determine what that is. And it seems to me that will be the first point. You don't come up ' with a development and then say well, here's the first development. We have the road up here. Therefore the rest of the properties surrounding it is going to fall in line. I would hope that what we look at is, we look at this as this is a guide and it doesn't necessarily have to dictate specifically what we wind up with. What typically happens in the process is that when a development comes forward, there's a developer, the surrounding property owners ' come forward and say you know, this is what we would like to see and then there's a process that we go through. But I'd probably see this again, like Diane did, as a PUD situation but I would again like to see the road go to the south. And I also think that that will change fundamentally this development. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Good. Well thank you all very much for coming and I think, hopefully being part of ' the process, maybe some of you for the first time, get at least an idea of the players, the forces that are at work. If you don't happen to know the names of your Council people, all their phone numbers are in the phone book and their published in every Villager. There's a ' section that says who they are at the State and local level. We appreciate your input and hopefully you felt that you were involved and we're listening to what you're saying. We'll be seeing this again and you all will get notices and it will be published in the paper so we ' expect to see you all in 2 weeks. I'd like to thank the development team for coming in and the adjacent property owners too. Thank you all. ' PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CM CODE REGARDING ACCESS STRUCTURES ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS. 1 69 Mr. Don Chmiel Mayor of Chanhassen 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 October 28, 1994 Dear Mr. Chmiel: I have recently been made aware of the potential rezoning of the land located behind my house. (attached) When I purchased a home in Windmill Run, I did so with the understanding that the zoning indicated that any future development would be single family homes. It is very likely that I. would have purchased elsewhere had I known that twin or town homes would adjoin my property. I also understand that the potential rezoning could mean 100 additional families travelling down the road (Brinker St.) where now only 35 families may travel. This greatly concerns me from a traffic and safety standpoint. I moved to Chanhasssen and Windmill Run in good faith that ' the city would honor the zoning that had been established around my house. I hope you will consider honoring the zoning and consider the residents -who will be most directly affected by any changes that are made. Sincerely, Q Jul ie A. ojtanowski 2145 Brinker St. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 612-474-0811 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e '� q� 'J� ;•/ .O 6 y�� .0��'. 2 I .•� G+, r \ ...�fN.•i!R(jd/�f71tT t �, �'o; ! •7Ws N _,O Of i, •;1 ^^ :• 't ra A' 01 �I /,�_-�.i ,�.� /' Db'�b c- _. i•'�t l�:' ,� B^ de ��••L is I �<+ O O ',Yp '' ',. i., ' `/c r Q 4y _! /i^? ['►(: ' 1_6'fS y o.� b.'� p\ 01'• `'� ' • _ 1 ,�C /i/ r` �`�e �'�� % � y. O 4fZ ��', 6t�Of, 91.0 / 1 , .� 1�• •+' .� (�, i ` O 00' Y`•'�t4 I f'M 1 l .J096 tt. oo atia • � �' � �� • / � ,� �2 \� u `� � � b`' •i 1r�' f�'C'Yi \ '?r'` .ram, , .Oy, � •.6�^gr 5 - y H vo ti t // C ,� O b ti. 2 tti•�b A \ S\o LO'rK COlt -J a `N Ivgt • 0� yy 09 t t0. �• : c a `� N ;I1 ' 1 ''c' l i Gr ' � /� Lam, �•�_ — — ��%" C.r g�. % 9L. LtCsr .I. I ) Cb I 9 ! f1T T L(6i�ON ? �6g i ` G y1 M gt9,6 • t JR� �, d r� �° •' /? 03 �psi.►OM vl ; _ \ . 41' N r 4 6 S7 :., [ •J� �9' i r v • L ;lfS �o MOgr ri r 1�' tt•� 9 u �� y 4/ `b�, `' ?►9'M .rt.►�Z rv, fs�R .. oy cc j I+r L I9,fgt•s.► JJ 1lyLe' . 'ri�.t✓•ra �.•✓: �tn6'C'G' ��.0 y.b /60.s0 ✓ 61 79y!V- v00'u, 5 b'.• •9L L "rI \ q �• p s 1,0t i i �;, ':/ , J r-- . •o,pp��Z � �L� � .y� � of 1J910- �'; :.? • I :;P`b:., '` ;d zi� � �b � ...I •' rr `' , r • 4/� 'D Lti � 7 /••� '� '. �•- • 1 �pv. 1'r : 1p ?• u� .w� / • 0 �I �4. • / tOj / V�;011' •,.-.f ...:.r' Q i�C.Br OOJT'Oa d.a36's ,.I C�� J9.55 $i art Iti ti V 7J It LL �, Sy0 '�Gr S. r• •� 1 I 69 1 I �y , �. o; .v 0079' J O' _% 4t 1 �• e.jj 1 A j--N JS E�I • 07•4J'17� >- C 0E r i� >7 / /� OT i .�y�t'.,''< "``• �.?• •„ I'e Iv 19, S A q I 77.64 $I C ^!- ••'t'-9 .� a gqttl \%V / '�� ul i� / ' •�. 1 �� t I p i� Nb�L• P .Xs 3D" w j o n - �J ,o o U # a 4� /ilR ; 4-7 i0'> -'y 35 w I ^+•II 6f11 `� .;r��; {; �/, ,�)p9 O /579 i rJ30LV toN.•.NI 697 avGl"N• f, !fY 9 N n e n•�.e irs^ .r i T' r 5�4 Q, I� yr d.3 ,•6 i .,y, 7 ;•0•. O• Iv1p. - 4 14196 . 1_ d•Je •, 40 \ • / ',Q " C.'J• ,� r 2 •� ' ` F I 1 vv �s as M N °J f:ep�➢\ ` GVy9/ijji'Jp5��r Agti01 �a'p� 4'S1 lt.?B'JB" ?_f' q�, b� •. .� j I' �e _ q s $ N A �•` i a`f .0 �d• tly ,� .'.Q `\ 3' ://`•� ♦ ,�; ^ y4 y'45� ti- ,i ��79'70• __ wry 709 .� .4 ` a Y "+ •. \ J p v : q i� DD I i� 160 a'.y.ew.'.. } /' bn Q.&•�t.I 1• el. y__q` 34'oJ I 4607 .9p ?ti C 9 Eii/ d 0.9��I ,.�lk 160.6_ J lr 6 ,N' '� r� S`;� /i •' pi.Rt 8`.gb,'c; • dl 90 q ,1< ,ST,,.....• W 1 LL•t ; fir' / 4' a 1 - n.1'' ^ �;/i 7. 70 096 . r' �1�ii �_n _ i�£IJ ` •Si' �° �:y- '_ - r19^"' :-1 - QQ _•�.(�,.•.. ''^: 0 bo zz 1 �> •, � �' � �. VO O �e of ` ` ^ �. :. Br r N70C ' O .8 • O b c ; y �4T b:0::;,( I`Of � ` ' is I � � ♦•0,4, �. , ". v � , `/o Kam,,` � _, 0"b� \ -- alb° I. i I 1 /, 1! ti•� •C4 �' O�^ / _ '�!•� �,� Jsirt` 'ofh►,'�ti'V • •� I .D DPI 1' .6 0.9t•0• / /9_�,?C4 \ \ }A �i •4i �� V r 1 6 _1s•7-r; V qpC�� 00 ^ q Ii / v • .`;d t r�91�" T039 rxya ��ti♦ ( �y `1�. • �: `` y _'ram• �c • • ' O` t :`�� i S i / ` 1 b< ti ? f 1 cl h� v �` N i r �ygti► 4 �•Q 3 6►.6�-4 <A / 4. Noy O 44p9 P \,� i �O.�L.►� 7 N cC x /LPtI►0(rt po e to ' tGOGI • �,' j /� � 03 Jw M .7/i, �iD�Ir�nON I,w.D4Q►D.`i0N A D iiL�N •C 4 M • I i JC F 'I' ..�►Lgy I ,1,a / " is ^� y �' OZr S�6� 8'' '• t.� �y �� 00''stfi// � i / 1 14 : C•/ 9 y'It. . • aMO� �b ry- ►9 M 1.►9.10 �t y n►, ../ 'i � Gv,O� y• ti__'N ly i tir �� ; al �a.tK yG .'�s� •/' �' r�i I ly 160301 a0 zt' 4'C $ °. J ! v r • '� >. bu 3,i 1$ 0 �O 9C �f• �� b� �• 1' •r Y , �w u .y.� ,� N uu"Jsss q CtOt, o, �q`�.'4�V�, ,, .r ~ ..• ... ,t, so JrOD ✓ )cY i - 01'Si'06' 1 �I ? ' Sy ,pl.;{pr i k--'�t7: • ....�,•�',, (, LY ,! ` ° "'36's. • •'I J9 33 �I { i o �` �.... �`yiI • • 1 jr i Z INN v • y� .i ' l9. '�•A• /0 '1y?P'• <-,. \.\.. l�P ;` Ir 0 .JyJ' r ]^ tJ 1 ' �'aG �'i r Mo '► ..a"�. ��\� �'� y �r �. 7. ` cb 1 600 J9))'sJ' v ^.. M s / `\ \\,) ` ' ,�, 5.00•J vl I h 9) tic I 00D7 -'.g:a 4 �/ ��,i I \` !J a NV '�•� at llj6A I gl �f I lu J101 I • J�p. J~ ��+' �9 '•.,\ •-O (' 1 i 1 aJ�:• �/I�/ �' yyl I 41.960 E '� • , _ 00 _ JJ^ .. of 9 w p •J9 7J • F t: c .711' �I ..--t•�1ys.; j:� �i 1 •; fit ♦ ��' I i64t ,579� .l o�/� 'T - �s o .• �I 96 e.w.-,eiR- %yT � r .'` _�. ,s11/ ^ v�•°-E, ^ 699-01 I JOYffso-_ °JJ2 1 '�. �`^Jy••,�66JI 1Q J •93h"'.;y,•L !•"'y •'•goy 'Y G .'� .6 } i s�'• J�;y�'�a 1 j /�. j !•J96 2 J . py� -.• � ., o/ e'er �i l y0' 1 I!� gLgQ >, t q I a t- 71CD 7, 31 T ?a7E" 'I 'n j0 b 8 ♦q'�'` <'i a� 7•%T L / �t' f . j.4' N0 ov J>oj, w -' � ,'�` N J% �•... Q�' L`j �q/�� •��♦ \ : 0 � Oq� aj•+1. 96 �`� �,g-.. � � og ',�ti ``CJ ' � o• •f "o °� 'q�'y;<'y+:'� ,• N� e J "ckl -- 8 /' �iMrfr 6 .:k�. qy . .. � � J' �, �, � f. ♦ O' •o' ♦ •1 �(, J ...� 149, -� •� S YSS' w i __j b\ t• J• 16�50 q 'J I 1 J� 1 46 94 OJ' �,• �.• y' v`� � i I,v�•t! �'' b�',` � d t_f 6.Or6 �J "!,� o �bL Via ^ V` �"'�•, �?bJ /►�� 11 �' ; 'v :F 1 �° ,� ` , c J Ot > .L 1+:£Z. �', `t, •} � � fie, �� ,. . �•. •�.' � - ": 1 ��'"'�', �b T OaO�'e °' + I `C. f . • 9r.Q Ri �rq,�[ E.y d �� .J i .-iP u- .. i,• b off• � - `l0. c._T _ t. - j a o •::,. '�,os .I � � i �3 `� 9y o� . c,. o � ti• �► :,��-� /� �, /� se- o �, i— a • /1/ i I a r `^5 ''p. yb " ' !ti �' l q� • ., s' GG 1, ,• �IO I .. i to / •O'G'rq°� � y ° .�+ OL V y \Y b ��• �i•.?•y � ' �'rL: L91[ _ [9t1 � S6'CS� y i"pr /�p-,�- 6 6(�',,`L 'J� p'L.O�, /.i,, % ,bf • .�' � ,-d0 S4 7 ..6f10►.9r -v • rJfl JO •�• , � a .''' C1 „ ' ��4 � ,�7 Jet /� �``�/ ...+8 9[afZ �. _6C%LS-7-: i..., � ♦ � n C; •,( % � a'�J�• �j `: a° 4Q14 � •..Cf M� JODaa .Y"` BgpO,C` ,yg L`'` � C !7 J�f • / L� �. L ��S 99 r�9� ►0�9 ig 99 -'" .:� ` �•� o `� M ,^ ' �/�/y ! 7 JJF /.�bp LLB ` �� Na w• `t.0 Cn 5 10 ' aL /• I r � '� ,•� /L �2 ,` b � .•`' by � r •L� �L1t '�\ ''P: r..., t4•�t•e. Fe.9' ' 2 u /:° r a '` ' O / .d 2 � e p ? � � ' ` � � cG• Q ' a 10 ,L� 0�' � 1ti0 60 r \ ,t. \° �' , U . L • �b8 • S,.?rD $/ v` / v�y� G.109ZC;;:c ;0 cw �a N �� :a y •,.J / O Va /� _ _IS[9 tS'�.9- - JJ d'L � � ,OTC i c5 -. , iPON �J .C4 4L M a' ,1" 0: y:1 •' �. .? rC - ,• S oeb5' � � .B .61,►OM v1 .w.8 :6r, 0 6, ;+ SJ' w '•/ G al I �: d. b '.i �- OL d I ;51 „Y (p OS ►Z 9 0'`" Spp♦(�/ O> u i-v G Ca b` T9 M ..rr.rS.ZO NI _ ' b AA / I ry: `: e y L J_ l� OO CS %l VO / LO gst 1 I�+4 bGa i � �L/ _ •p Q . r0 9Sr 1 •LC.9S.go Sf O 9tW i Ib� �: Oa y N- •vl I•., I • 7 .9 [L %/70 ;` � NI GObz�• C4 'm°'{ I� ; G I 1 ,5� '` I rpi T � Y��?,� •• '1r b4' ,(L,• y1 y'•� �^I i fL�. I � y it '�, �n •J;`� ' 00'r Or' s �• C 4 � •a • yy �.o '►'rs 1 •'� • Labs. gl a � a. � � la ° '' -z�. B0 COL e � � � •• �' Q' -�.' 3 �C � 6 Of C' a�'.. - - :a a Ste• ry '�! b :iv '� A Cr �'-L. •/ p o C�J�. ,•,4LL L� • _ -tea .= . - 'Lr °000a. { - b .aI6J� �1. N J1 •`J'1 F / . r s00'J 1'^9' d7j6` ai _ _ •".. 55 C 1 G.pL 0` / 4'.. �,` y, �...�•$ G LL yr� .1 . ti \i �; I, •- V• 4•!1jj- yI A .S .[p; v Q v o1 .. �L• - SB a ,y i .�tS�/�m'q , ' e � - `— l��or E, u•1 I` J 1' `. •c9 ) 4 `° /J / OY4 ` 4, . a �9 1 .S I•e tud-`59d2. X1 � O � �'• 1 � CD T'09'w�. C•'a.06 a•v 97 C�9`p ` s •�' S w OC:J 'CB" si I v o1LJF a1. a•.^ x ,. ac '•Js s5 ;w Co c [e '' a'-F � �-� �' � I � � �� rn � � m i lu b .- %I pa 1•' ! I ;�-,.S�J'C I � �C ,u<�r'�p e�"�� In '1 ;� 'ci+k' i/- (w � °vl ra.gg I •' �' '65 9 V 1+'� �, ,� ? ;\ � � '{ I. I II•1 ..�' p�r �,� %% =�I q N o1.J.1- e r 1�• 'm :r? v I �!W 4.': b', I 4-1'40'ar�.•'• •LZ �� __. � '� a. , I"�+ • F � , � . ales � � [-J9 �J • •. • •r, d,::'i �'- � !1 „ '.jo 9.:?w ' 15794 .1..�- o•+ �.''1 ( •s75o7 _ v01•aJa Say u.,�. .St. �g�• 1'Y.S55 7 96 �' S C•4ay .. N � J L �/ ,.. `.,Jd Jy ;I � �1g�. ,, K�1� ---T�_� �•19 `�• 1,/ d/J ,B3S1,Js ��JSJ,;,,I' Y _��r jJ ati .'J'_?'.-' 69_a60 •iV•J9j�C 0 - ',aJpgW�.�4.I�ISeJsiI -55 '0 A 5 ' .c C.aO� � \ � C 0 J R, Cf / GQ C �Q 4 S-ra• . �' i 14 ..� = O9� J� g1'g0 /i ,C5• -f aL (a d • \\ r7J1 ti -�:k, S!' M q v� V�b- °' � :'Oc�e 2 <^ N dp •/ L ti,�y Yt � .. CnO,r•(L� L' 4[• 5 ` I, � � _ .� r a� to •, � a . � �+ G c b ♦ + a . v • . ', o. � ..,4.; v 0°: + a d a ti u - _ . :,. `' - ti � � y a • OG L y`/ , 0b bp• ! • �°a,,� \ o, � qL ,Lv � L 1 � � c`" � :'` �` , ' I • . ,.fig ti••v r � / O � � �� c `�. OL. p �C 2 O S :.-.-i",.•%, 100 7 50 nr�i. 4 ♦ / 1' tip ° Oq Mtn a° d~I �•,3 d rao oor6 •I� Or'a9'a6•w v to v5r �0 r6 f i- ^+"� 0 `w SVJ\ y v" s� 7p J 5.0079 55' w S , %O \ J �• .�• . 2 t 0� . �`: 1'34 CJ" ` SO • A Q•7y. �•�� _ 1607 ?i y' AB S Oa..S.O .� � . •S �9J O' �.,y . ♦ r \ � r `"` 00 L �C_ _r5C 69 �.� 1` B� r0�r�R`r:•\` / i oJ�Q GG bp�� JS� O/ / dC -•T,_9 9i0 .t•• -y v • b [. y �..• G w � i3 . �670 b((a ,�• •l;,p .� io ,ai Sa, V ` b. N ; 'v.0 y r� � .� _-- - �- ' 0 _ 0 y �.� • : •Y :,8' i• pd • '. p '� .b.� rb i � `, ' �qti 2 •• n, a •\�1.0. �' � ., y ., q b !o �. ,a•• 4• c. "eat. G a a O Y n ' - f_ __--_� .L- GO,a b m•F••: o%• J .� � 1 '� ,V G O�� ., L. y,'�a a �� ti.a `� ` ` aP � � fur �•! ro -�-6v'bLv �•. `.'r.. o '�Ya ,I �S �%' GG.. .. O „� oN..c`; cb. �,� � �.- J` _ . 'a l8',TL7 y, j 990 �ZrYOpeo S -f. Dg0 oy6/ii / J i a� a ,, ` �° • ; •o � J d � � /,-� 'f^," � � �•, � cG . �, Aq tdl�°, 4 a'• .J •�6' !� � i / � , / .O �, 4� LL��L�_'. __ V 0� N '4,q0 i • fJr. '►[ _ [9't[ CP t••, `\ CvvV /i J, . y1,'bf� L♦ -,+. OY 7 ( .6 0 ,+C'' y U jO 9r / ��.••�.R` `�' 0.94 ' \ .• / Crt �J''4 � •� (� i r.t�r N fD'r <.� �'; 4. ♦,�♦a;,g�SC `,\ �I I/� 4 � • / � a0 4�a, C i o981`Y�, � • 99�C� �.� `ttt ^ p 7 � 4 � r�.r'9 i039 r '9� �.'vi C• ti�Ao 1 / r• b, a a cv Li L �L1 �\ �S' 6♦,6 I aw• �.�•� �4 N v b L .L.4?�669 \\�j' 3 OLYI i br• i O ,p 1i•\ / V b ^'' v O 1L� A L �' ♦ i 'a �' • 09 ;IFo` Z 7 V b I 'yam a ; `a;/ + i ti Nv c5'09 0.1or I c.t J6?.♦J l / r - d'6� 0' T. •49L L 96� .09, ' JR S De / ►� 6►.►ON 6g,tQN 4 M " e+ 6 .g9 JO �ii• �,o •'J I?. b3 SJ''�'' . D .Of• ►OM �� \ \ y4 Jv " � ' L • ♦,1s16 /9 - (,,, I bODiZ9 Q{(r .' % .y �C•�i 9 u) : .� `y �� •i J ../90M Arl.►S.ZO N 81 I 00'C fi ( 1 .° b�"� i I 0,0'9Sr r 1p H 00J 5' �• QI 3 " .. � � � " ; `• �G06��, �- •!u ,' G •.. N � "fin / ' 9 8�•� LL i9.r `� / t ` yv � t�'ja•� , • � b4' 1�r `m g ! +':i,6 ply I r60.3oc I Y ,�, v►,o, !G•f"!s .�-,. ,,� y L' n' — o I A,00'79'3V E l yL� 1' • / V' ` `L� Q,t. '. 1. gp.9y L� �� ..D •So�i� v'� bb o ��. 5 r, of /• iyy ;a .0 1J9.IQ i ♦ G , t � , �/ :•off, , � M-','tj• �•y. •{ t� �`' I -�. ^' OC'J9'33" I �C. ♦ / .� �/♦% in < 9 .. J7Ol d+s�36'S, .'I I . • L J9 13 �{ 0 � � • --'�♦ I,Q t.( �" V.' '.,� ( r J. B7 n' 070'J9 E 5604 i G� C i `�•�• I 1ISS,cp T'09•w V N 1+7,�j6 qI I N!O021 J9'S5• i, ` `I\ �l�• �, `�; !ti J iJHo7 600$ O l �t� 1 i•, `.`;V�� y• o. Yy /'/� .1\ 7XI�/}' ' !�'••/s: u OW (+L•LC?f.'7, '�' S• 1726 J9 3 OGJB'Sw % 774 ,b I , J'O. Ir 6\J pg II f �ti 5.r9 4 4 1 d+1J490',J' I w % '7J'I Il •? :�,; d 1y1• .al 152691 :L •- ' �, ,p ,, ' ;•6!.7 N i $ ,J ,7 00 J9'SS' I :. _ J '�i • �.S�A V ti Cw d.37By6 ( �� I•. ''G ,yB'OJ O V L �. ••: � JJ� i° . � C•e1.19 '•� �d C I L` 68 JI � •L.J,d'j, , ,y�, �J� JS '.I a� - 14 d +J7� \ J ti 9a .. L ✓} °'e +?JOB✓C, 00,J9 '55, w N D 1 100 0 - i93F'-•, -ht jJC d. 0 ev B4 Nds� I ^ �O� i ti//��. \�Y�!•J? S�lP° 7.•I ^ y I•' d= !16 J8" M. I. � o S^V w b`' • �. � •\d. J.i. ,�y. c„ ; i; J J, ael� 00 J9'SS' w 0 p m tp 6 �bN� Z <i ,.�0"�y t. �. /�,�i `b� c y/ ^•',o I. ��7970" -�I • ' b. �. e 0� +� \ .�•, M q �q`. Li Q I� 'ouw 'OJ �oY6'w• o a / \ \� ��,tivn ��g�n cad �p� I . ,' i"ho el Z�•''S Os - \, b '� .7JJ. /t� , .� ,,.� �y:•,• ; . b 46 07 yl ch ov ;�• O .cis! ,.. f�.i3 `�7• v ' 1 rn q: ,�q�, , _ j � a.� w� C .__� OM.p N� ,� IJa !_` ,� �y � tips `� byy�'�,oq� p,�q•.Ypn n�'' . �'— f m YI• r / � ; .fir q � �i �+ q r �,r�, l • " / . p., jAB Q0, 096 �OZJYO/pZiO-.�•....+ _ - \` � 99G = ---- ,'�� CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 November 10, 1994 Re: Lake Ann Highlands Public Hearing Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Wetland Alteration Permit Dear Resident: The public hearing for the Lake Ann Highlands' piilinui nary plat, rezoning, and wetland alteration permit has been deleted from the Plannmg, Commission agenda for Wednesday, November 16, 1994. The public hearing is being rescheduled to Wednesday, December 7, 1994, in the Chanhassen City Council Chamber, 690 `Coulter Drive, at 7:30 p.m. If you want to see plans before the meeting, please stop; by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through `Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, extension 141. Bluff Creek Partners Hi -Way 5 Partnership Michael J. Gorra Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire c/o Dennis Dirlam 1680 Arboretum Dr. 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E 15421 Creekside Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 David Stockdale & Douglas & Theresa Bentz Darleen Turcotte Angie McBryde Stockdale 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7240 Galpin Blvd. 7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 John Hennessy & D. Rengers Theodore & Marlene Bentz J. P.'s Links, Inc. 7305 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. c/o John Przymus Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Kristine Perry Mark & Sharon Pryor Jean Kingsrud 7521 Windmill Dr. 7541 Windmill Dr. 2027 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Joan Joyce Robert & Carol Obersigner Brian R. Erdman 2043 Brinker Street 2075 Brinker Street 2091 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey R. Stone Amit & Ruth Diamond Collin & Desiree Brown 2103 Brinker Street 2117 Brinker Street 2131 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Julie Wojtanowski The Rottlund Company Kathleen Hademan 2145 Brinker Street Suite 301 2059 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 5201 East River Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fridley, MN 55421 Dawn Ronningen Jeff Steinke Blane Hammer 7471 Tulip Court 7481 Windmill Drive 7421 Windmill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joel Reimers Rick Manning David & Cindy Jensen 7495 Crocus Court 7460 Windmill Drive 2173 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Allan and Mary Jane Olson Kathy Haldeman Ed & Kathy Loveridge 7461 Windmill Drive 2059 Brinker Street 7508 Tulip Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Charles & Bonnie Lou Peterson 7496 Crocus Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Steve Selinger 7480 Windmill Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dawn Cook-Ronninger 7471 Tulip Court ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Wendy Stove 2103 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 I L 1 James & Jeanette Freidler 7500 Windmill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Virginia Bell 7476 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patricia Lynch 7475 Crocus Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ross Fefercorn Suite 145 7625 Metro Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55439 Joy Bott 7490 Tulip Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lars Conway 4415 Fremont Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55409 November 18, 1994 Dear Neighbor: Enclosed please find a picture postcard which depicts a typical "street-scape" of one of our award winning communities, Woodland CountryHomes in Eagan. Please note the abundance of landscaping and the architectural characteristics which has become our hallmark. We look forward to discussing our proposed development at Lake Ann Highlands with you sometime in the near future. Please feel free to contact either myself or Brad, we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. ,Regards, Ross M. Fefercom' President CountryHome Builders Brad Johnson 1 Broker Lotus Realty P.S. We are pleased to announce that our 1994 Parade of Homes Model in Woodbury was awarded the prestigious 1st place Reggie Award in the $185,000 to $284,000 single- family attached category by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities. Development Office 7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 145 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612)835-4126 ■ Construction Office 6648 Rustic Road Southeast Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 (612)447-2424 Building communities of fine carefree homes ,.5. 4 C i. .:3 '��wy'r . �' �-. .;-. ` r/� � _2�� `� �.£ �er ..ram � ,�;:.. - �., � ;F '"' p, f - .- �" � , - � �" _ .. � . _- ,�,. �, =a=�� .. �,�,�+"�.i�+mN ,y a .. .� � � � � 'ountryHome November 23, 1994 Dear Neighbor: We would like to invite you to a neighborhood informational meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 30, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall regarding the possible development at Lake Ann Highlands. At this meeting, I will present to you some background information on CountryHomes and provide you with an overall view of a typical CountryHome development . Brad will also bring you up to date on the Highway 5, Arboretum Blvd development.and the overall plan for Dr. Conway's property. Representatives will also be available from BRW to answer any questions you might have. We hope to see you there! CountryHome Builders Inc. ■ Development Office 7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 145 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612)835-4126 Construction Office 6648 Rustic Road Southeast Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 (612)447-2424 Building communities of fine carefree homes Brad Johnson Broker Lotus Realty ' RECEIVED I CITY OF CKMHASSEN 7 /L- y-9Y Joe Scott 7091 Pimlico Lane Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Mr. Scott: We would like to take this opportunity to express great concern regarding the proposed Lake Ann Highlands development near Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. Following are the issues that we feel are the most important. Before making a decision to purchase a home in the Windmill Run Development, we checked with the City Planning Department regarding the status of the land south of Brinker Street. We were told by City Planner Bob Generas that this area would be single family detached homes. We believed what we were told and trusted the City Planning Department to have the most up to date information. If we had known the twinhome possibility, we would NOT have built our home in Windmill Run. t The reasons for this are: (1) As the parents of two small children, we are concerned for their safety. This concern stems from the proposed plan which allows for higher population density and a direct connection between our street and ' a twinhome development. This will almost certainly cause an increase in traffic. This issue causes an increased risk we were not willing to assume, and tried to avoid, when home shopping. (2) The proposal calls for construction traffic to be routed through our development. This is ' unacceptable, as it increases the danger to our children. The kids in this neighborhood currently have no central play area, which means the streets are continually being crossed in order to get from house to house. This is, in my opinion, another unnecessary and unwanted risk, and one which we were not willing to assume at the time of our home purchase decision. (3) The final reason we would not have built knowing that twinhomes were a possibility is the possible loss of property value incurred by us and others due to the placement of twinhomes nearby, and ' connected to, our neighborhood. The proposed Country Home development, if their Eagan development can be used as a model, indicates no or little deviation from unit to unit in terms of external elevation and very subtle color variations, all grey. We would be looking out at a grey sea of identical homes. ' Additionally, the increase in noise due to higher density population and accompanying traffic would work to lower our property value. ' If twinhomes are necessary between Brinker and Hwy 5 there must be a transition from our development (i.e. a continuation of our development) and then some type of a buffer (park/trees/berms) for visual enhancement and noise reduction. The continuation of Windmill Run to the south must contain homes with a similar valuation to ours. This concept, although not consistent with what we were told by the City Planning Department, would be an adequate compromise for us. In summary, we knew this area would be developed when we purchased our home but were told that it ' would be developed using single family detached homes. We wish to protect our children's safety and our property values. This can be done by incorporating the above suggestions. ' Jeff and Wendy Stone DEC-06-94 14=39 FROM: ID: December. 6, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Kate Aanenson Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.Q. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Kate and Bob: Attached please .find a courtesy copy of our .Letter to the Planning Commissioners which we delivered last evening. The Letter relates to the proposed I.,ake Ann Highlands development which is the subject of the Wednesday evening Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, l�� Virginia A. Bell 7476 Crocus Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 VAB/wb Attachment IDEC-06-94 14:40 FROM: ID= PAGE 3 1 December 5, 1994 11 Mr. Joe Scott Ms. Nancy Mancino Chairperson Vice Chairperson 7091 Pimlico Lane 6620 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mr. Ladd Conrad Mr. Jeff Farmakes 6625 Horseshoe Curve 7100 Utica Dane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mr. Matthew Ladvina Ms. Diane Harberts 2711 Piper Ridge Lane 7190 Frontier Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Ronald Nutting 6524 Gray Fox Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Windmill Run Dear Commissioners: We are residents of the subdivision known as Windmill Run. our home is located north of the proposed Lake Ann Highlands development. We have reviewed the Revised Staff Report for the proposed development, and the following is a list of concerns: THE cOMPREYSNSIVE Staffs Finding No. 2 set forth at page 3.7 of the Report provides that "the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans." This finding, which is required by Section 18-39 (f) (2) of the City ordinance if the subdivision is to be approved, needs to be re-examined. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan ' ("Comprehensive Plan") designates the subject property as Residential Low Density. Residential Low Density ("R-L") is definod at page 18 of the enmprehensi.ve Plan as follows: DEC-OS-94 14:40 FROM: ID: PAGE 4 December 5, 1994 Page 2 The predominate type of development within the residential low density category issingle-family detached housing[Emphasis added.] Anyone reading the comprehensive Plan would understand that single family housing is at least to predominate in the R-L neighborhoods. The proposed subdivision, however, contains absolutely no single family detached housing. In fact, what it contains is ,ate multiple unit housing or "twin homes." Moreover, the number of multiple units to be built in the subdivision equals or exceeds the number of single family homes in the adjacent Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates. The proposed subdivision is thus inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's position that single family homes are to predominate in the areas designated for R-L. What is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is the information given to many of the Windmill Run residents by the planning staff. Residents were consistently told that the City's plan was to develop the subject property as single family homes, much like Windmill Run. Moreover, at 3.56 units per acre this development is at the extreme limit of the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The development also well exceeds the target density of 1.7 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is simply not consistent with either the language or the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does designate a separate area for multiple unit housing; that is the area along Highway 5 and the Highway 5 access road south of the proposed development. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Residential -Medium Density. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates that it is this area designated as Medium Density that is to accommodate multiple units, such as those proposed here. The Comprehensive plan states: The medium density designation is intended to accommodate multiple units including duplexes, townhomes, and lower density apartments. It is important to note that the proposed twin homes are unquestionably multiple units and are generally understood to be townhomes. This is in fact how the proposed builder, Country Home, markets them. In response to a suggestion by the applicant, we have toured three of the existing Country Home twin home developments in Eagan, DEC-OS-94 14:41 FROM: ID: PAGE 5 ' December 5, 1994 Page 3 Woodbury and Eden Prairie. The entrance sign to at least "Townhomes" and all of the one of the developments says directional advertising signs say "Townhomes." The advertising brochures also refer to them exclusively as "townhomes." Most importantly, they all look alike, have A monochromatic color scheme and feel higher in density a than a comparable single family detached neighborhood. ' They lack traditional yards and any sense of openness, and is responsible for all ground maintenance. an association They are townhomes. conceptually, none of the Country Home townhome of a developments we looked at were predominant parts single family neighborhood as is proposed here. In no case represented. instead, they existed were they even Vgually as small buffers between single family neighborhoods and commercial areas, or they were distinct developments interaction with single family separate from any neighborhoods. In addition, all the townhome developments had substantial buffers between the development and any These buffers included single family homes they abutted. dramatic changes in elevation, mature trees, streets or a Ann Highlands combination of these. The proposed Lake includes none of these. iIn summary, approval of this development would turn in the comprehensive Plan, and what was envisioned represented to future residents of Windmill Run as a single family neighborhood, into one that is predominantly a series of look -alike townhomes. ROADS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS We are also concerned that the proposed development section may be premature in light of other factors. finding that a development is 18-39(f)(1) requires a premature if it lacks adequate roads. If the development is premature, it should not be approved. In this case, the development lacks adequate roads. Specifically, proposed the stated at the informal meeting on November 2, applicant 1994 that he intends to force the city to choose a route for the Highway 5 access road, preferably the northern the subdivision route. It should be asked if approval of is prudent at this time when a route for the road has not been determined and when none of the land east of the development is committed to any plan. Moreover, according to the staff Report, the access is ' road does not even have to be built until phase 2 D£C-06-94 14:41 FROM: ID: PAGE 6 December 51 1994 Page 4 constructed and until that time access to the project will be through Windmill Drive. This is inadequate because, among other things, it is unsafe. it is simply not safe to be routing multiple unit housing traffic through streets lined with single family housing and full of preschool and school age children. We also feel it is disturbing that the applicant is opposed to a PUD and also states his opposition to the City having any input into the design and aesthetics of the proposed units. In view of our visit to the other locations, this would indeed lead to a very nondescript grouping of clone housing that does not fit the intention of the City in its view of future development in general and this area in particular.. PARK AND, RECREATION COMMISSION Also included in our package for the Planning commission meeting are the minutes from the Park and Recreation commission in which they recommend approval of the development. However, in reading their minutes, they are making no judgment regarding the appropriateness of the development, either with regard to the Comprehensive Plan or how the development fits with the surrounding neighborhoods. They do, however, question the timing of the proposal since the location of the Highway 5 access road has not yet been determined. The recommendation of the Park and Recreation commission is based strictly on the tact that the Comprehensive Man calls for the developer to pay fees in lieu of land dedication, fees which are desperately needed by the Parks and Recreation department to build a park in the Stockdalc neighborhood. It can bc, assumed that they would just as heartily recommend a PUD with single family detached as part of the Comprehensive Plan, that also includes tees in lieu of land dedications. CONCLUSION Because the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the language of the Comprehensive Plan and the way in which that Comprehensive Plan was interpreted and represented to neighboring residents, and because the subdivision lacks adequate roads and is premature, we believe the proposed subdivision and accompanying ra-zoning should be denied. IDEC-06-94 14:42 FROM: ID: PAGE 7 December 5, 1.994 Page 5 We also respectfully request that the Commission adopt the proposed finding. Because of the extensive representations made to Windmill residents, and because of the need to taper housing densities and styles down to Highway 5, and because of the inclusion of the area in question in the highway 5 corridor, we find that this area, and possibly including property to the east of the proposed development, would best be served by the development of PUD. And, finally, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the following motion: RE -ZONING. The Planning Commission recommends denial of re -zoning 194-7 to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District and further recommendsrecommends that re -zoning of this property b in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development. SUBDIVISION. The Planning Commission denies preliminary plat #94-7. Thank you. sincerely, Virginia A. Bell Stephen A. Tornio VAB-SA'P/wb ME c J j 14 yr� �i /I , !/ - (f f Ufvr� � �J /4-J7 S � a I -A yje- LOTUS REALTY SERVICES ITk-cember 5, 1994 1 Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen HAND DELIVERED Re: Lake Ann Highlands Dear Bob: We are in receipt of your staff report dated December 7, 1994 and have the following comments relating to your recommendations: Item 6: We feel that it should be attached to the Hennessey property, subject to a maintenance agreement. Item 7: Park fees may be offset by the value of the conservation easement (Item 27) if it is to be used as a trail. Item 8: Need to better define. Is this a standard requirement of a single family subdivision. Items 24 and 25: Fees may be offset by value of conservation easement and the value of the twenty foot right-of-way dedicated to Arboretum Boulevard. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sincerely, Bradley C. Johnson I 1 1 545 WEST 78TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 235 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 0 (612) 934-4538 ■ FAX (612) 934-1505 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Ron Nutting MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Tom Scott, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO R4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES INTO 92 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5. APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD (CR 117), LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, LAKE ANN HIGHLANDS. Public Present: Name Address Sharon & Mark Pryor David & Cindy Jensen Jeff Stone Margaret & Rick Manning Michelle Hammer Jeff Steinke Steve & Judy Selinger Michael Perry Bret Davidson Lars Conway Betty & Larry VanDeVeire Peter Beck Jack Lynch Ross Fefercom Kevin & Joan Joyce Amit Diamond Virginia Bell 7541 Windmill Drive 2173 Brinker Street 2103 Brinker Street 7460 Windmill Drive 7421 Windmill Drive 7481 Windmill Drive 7480 Windmill Drive 7521 Windmill Drive 2200 Majestic Way 4415 Fremont Ave So, Mpls 4980 Co. Rd. 10E, Chaska 7900 Xerxes Ave So, Mpls 700 Third Street, Mpls 7625 Metro Blvd #145, Mpls 2043 Brinker Street 2117 Brinker Street 7476 Crocus Court 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Name Address Patricia Lynch 7475 Crocus Court Susan Reimers 7495 Crocus Court Jim Fiedler 7500 Windmill Run Julie Wojtanowski 2145 Brinker Street Thomas Turcotte 7240 Galpin Blvd. Mary Jane Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Brian Erdman 2091 Brinker Street Carol & Bob Oberaigner 2075 Brinker Street Kathy Halaeman 2059 Brinker Street Steve Thornberg 7511 Crocus Court Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments? Mancino: I just have one, well I have several questions but I'm going to wait until after the public hearing but Bob the one that I had is there are a couple of outlots and according to the preliminary grading and drainage plans that I have, I don't see where the outlots are. They're not marked on our most recent documents. Generous: Outlot A is the large parcel to the south of that north ... road and then Outlot B is in the corner of the plat but next to the Hennesey property. It's a small triangle of land that's located in this area. The little triangle. That's one of the conditions that we put in was either combine it with the abutting lot or attach it to the Hennesey property. The applicant has expressed his desire that they would like it to be attached to the Hennesey property. That's approximately 1,300 square feet. Mancino: I'm sorry, the northeast corner of the Hennesey, northwest corner? Generous: Northeast corner of the Hennesey property there's a small triangle. Mancino: I'm sorry, I didn't get a copy of this. So if I could ask the applicant questions... thank you. Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners. Any other comments from staff? Okay, would the applicant like to make a presentation please? Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Brad Johnson with Lotus Realty. The presentation this evening will be basically a review of what Mr. Generous has just done from Jack Lynch who is with BRW and then introduce Ross Fefercorn from Country Homes who will go over his product. I think we tried to address the major issues that were raised at the Planning Commission last time and we hope to be able to address those. In the last 2 or 3 weeks we've had an opportunity to make the changes I believe that were requested of a technical nature and we've had a chance to meet with the neighbors to explain exactly what type of product this is and... Relative to recommendations of the Planning department, we gave them a letter which they may or may not have gotten to you, that this deals with 6 or 4 issues that we would have, that I don't think are major and are more a negotiation thing that will probably happen between now and the time we go to the Council but one is we, for reasons of in discussion with Mr. Hennesey, he may or may not want to have access into his property instead of having to go over to a new drive ... CR 117 so one way of assuring him of that would be either to create an outlot, which we have done, or just simply attach it to the property. They're not hung up on that. It just seemed like it might be a good idea at the time. As far as park fees are concerned, we understand that we would be required to have a conservation easement across the river that comes through there. However, we're trying to offset some of our costs. There's about $180,000.00 of fees involved in this and we assume that if it was going to be used for trail or park purposes that sooner or later, either in this plat or as part of the outlot that's being platted, that we would be given credit for that. I believe we can work our way through it but I don't know if the standards to require architectural standards in a single family project that we're recommending. That if we find that to be ... we'd like to discuss that later. We have a feeling for what we're going to be doing exactly and then items 24 and 25, again these are conservation easements. As part of the plat ... 20 feet of right-of-way, additional 20 feet of right-of-way to the new Arboretum Boulevard and we'd like to be compensated or offset some of your water quality and water quantity fees and I think those are primarily things that we probably negotiate ... by the time we got to the Council. With that I'd like to introduce Jack Lynch who is a planner with BRW and he'll go over the technical things that ... were requested and then following him Ross Fefercorn will make a slide presentation about the product. Jack. Jack Lynch: Thank you. I think the staff covered the issues that I think you asked us to take a look at. The landscaping's been changed. The building pads are the building pads that will be built. The pads that are shown on this graphic with options might be lengthen but are not increased in any width at all. The one concern was the grades on the knoll. The knoll has been dropped. The previous grades were reduced by half. There was a concern on staff about the landing areas on here. But built into that grading plan is a landing area that's about 2% to 4% so we're confident that there will be no safety issues. I think that addressed the comments both by commissioners and ... if you have any questions, I can certainly answer them. 3 IPlanning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 ' Scott: Okay, thanks. Any questions? I guess we don't have any questions so. Ross Fefercorn: Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, my name is Ross Fefercorn from Country Builders and I've got a short slide presentation. A little bit about our company before I start. We've been in business about 10 years. We've been very active in the Burnsville, Apple Valley, Woodbury, Eagan, recently Eden Prairie and hopefully Chanhassen markets. I checked with the planners in Apple Valley, Eagan, Woodbury today, and Burnsville, and asked if there were any questions if anybody from Chanhassen could call them...the product so you're welcome to call the folks in those cities. I think that was... My slide presentation shows some streetscapes of a couple of our sites. It shows some details and elevations of a typical building. However in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie we are going to be adding about 60% brick to the exterior whereas these are all wood sided. Our price ranges in these developments are now averaging $195,000.00 in Woodbury, to the high end about $280,000.00. The low end about $150 and with Eagan, which is another active site, our average price is about $185,000.00. It's substantially the same product, it just happens to be what options people have chosen on the two sites. Also in Eden Prairie we're a little bit higher. We're averaging about $250,000.00 there, although the neighborhoods just keep growing but we hope that that will be the average... With that, let me proceed with the presentation. I'll walk through it and describe a few things. Also one thing that's really important to point out about the planning that BRW and Lotus has done for this site with our home. The average size lot, that's per unit lot at Lake Ann is 12,500 square feet. The average sized lot at all the other developments I just described is 7,500 square feet so these are substantially larger lots. 60% larger ... so there's considerably more width than what I'm showing you but yet one of the ideas of the presentation was to show landscaping and so forth between buildings. One other thing I'd like to point out is that both at our Eagan site and our Woodbury site we have ... in approximately 7 trees per home. I think in Woodbury right now we have moved 350 trees onto the 20 acre site and we have about 200 trees left to go as we complete the buildings so we do an incredible amount of landscaping. I like to brag about it. I think we do more than any other builder in town. Believe in it as part of the environment and that shows. Most of the pictures you'll see here, the landscaping is not more than 3 months old at the time the pictures were taken. One of the things, I accidentally flipped on the date sequence on the camera unwittingly and this is not the right date. These were taken in the summer. Late summer. This is the entrance to our development called... Country Homes in Eagan. It's 70 homes on 20 acres. It's a brass monument put in place and entry landscaping. Behind that you see one of our two unit buildings. Both sides are different. That's why the garage has changed orientation there a little bit in size. This is a streetscape looking down on roughly about a 6% grade. What you see to the right hand side is a landscaped center island for a cul-de-sac. We like islands in the cul-de-sac. They make very fine opportunities for a significant landscaping and so forth. This is looking at that same particular island at two buildings or four homes. Each one, each half of those double homes 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 is a, in that particular cul-de-sac is about $250,000.00. Looking back at that cul-de-sac on an individual's yard. That happens to be one of the larger yards of this site. This is another landscaped cul-de-sac that's a little bit larger. In the lower left hand side of the photograph, there's a 3 car garage. Just suppose with a 2 car garage turning the garage doors different directions than is shown on this plat for Lake Ann which changes the streetscape quite a bit. Also one thing that we always do. There's always at least two windows as you can see in every single garage so we don't just leave blank walls. There's always... windows and then details around those windows. The gable end treatment is a shaker town type siding. You can't see ... some other little details of the gable ends which change the shape and size and so forth as we look at the project. These trees that you see on the lower right hand in the middle, all the trees that have been planted on the landscaped cul-de-sac are machine moved species taken out of a forest. This is again looking at that same landscape cul-de-sac and again at a, on the left hand side you see a 2 1/2 car garage. On the right hand side you see a 2 car garage. Both with gable end details. Another ... but this is all brand new landscaping this summer. Now behind this you can see a two-2 car garages. One garage is oriented one way. The other garage is oriented towards the street. This is what we call our Legend Rambler Walkout. It's about 3,400 square feet including a 3 season porch. It's a walkout that people can finish. It is a 2 1/2 acre garage. All of our homes feature a nice sitting area off of the breakfast and dining area which is where you see the umbrella. And the keystone retaining wall with our landscaping is typical of our walkout homes. This home today is about $250-260,000.00. Another vignette of that particular home to see some of our landscaping. Also showing a lower level walkout area which has a covered porch also. This is typical of our entry landscaping with mature hedges and spreading junipers and the rock mulch and the river birch type tree and some of the details on the bay windows. Now in Chanhassen, as in Eden Prairie, this elevation will substantially be brick. This is a one story home with a master suite on the second floor. We call this our Legend suite. That home today sells for about $200,000.00 and this is a typical treatment of what our homeowners do with the hanging baskets. There's a lot of personal detail and attention paid and individuality to each and every home we build. This is another home that was constructed this summer showing a 3 car garage. What that starts to look like. That happens to be the Legend suite plan with the upstairs again. A little gable end detail which I wanted to show you with the 3 car garage jutting out and the gable end of the 2 car garage behind it and the little details below the overhang on the gable. This is pretty typical of what we do throughout all of our... Harberts: Excuse me, what's the representation of the 18-2, or excuse me 81-2-18? Ross Fefercorn: As I mentioned earlier, I had accidentally flipped on the date on my camera, not knowing it was on. It wasn't set for any particular date. That's a 2 1/2 car garage which is an addition onto a 2 car garage which is an option on our home. A lot of people do it. It adds additional storage and some people park golf carts. They create little work areas there E Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 and that's typical of the windows and... elevations of our garage doors. 3 car garage again. Here I wanted to talk, to show a little bit about what the neighborhood starts to look like as you walk into it. This is a typical neighborhood and this is a typical little patio area and how people treat it. I think earlier we saw some other hanging baskets. This was somebody else's treatment of their own patio. This is another treatment. Somebody else's patio area and that, the little door behind goes to your breakfast area and your kitchen and your kitchen sink overlooks this little area that's intimate with your home. Swinging porch is sort of the traditional kind of feeling. This is a very typical distance between buildings and keeping in mind that Lake Ann will be 60% larger than this. I think this is about 45 feet between these buildings and I think Lake Ann averages about, what is it, 70 feet? 70 feet between buildings so it's almost twice the distance between these buildings. It's very, very generous. This shows a little bit of the roll in the elevation. The way we treat the driveways with the landscaping around it. The mailbox treatments. The hedges again. The sidewalks and what this is coming to, there's a street on the other side where instead of a drive ... so we're really looking for two streets, two layers of our homes. Same ... looking through two layers, back to back. Again this is all landscaping that was installed this summer. Now I want to walk through the interior of this one. I just have a few pictures, if you don't mind. This is looking from the dinette and the kitchen. That's the door that goes to the patio. Incidentally, for this home, back in 1994 we were awarded the 1994 Reggie Award, first place for quality and design in the $185,000.00 to the $285,000.00 price range for attached single family homes by the Builders Association, which we're very proud of. This is the dining area looking through to the living room. The entry area behind it. The den behind and way behind that, it's a very open plan, is the 3 season porch. To the left down the hallway on the other side of the fireplace is the master suite and this is what the master suite looks like. There's also a very large master bath attached to it and more closet space and built-ins and so forth. This is the 3 season porch. It's very typical of how most of our customers finish them with tile floors and half round... window. This is the lower level of the model finished with another fireplace and more built-ins. It has a bar area and open staircase that goes down. This is typical of our customers. This was about 8 years ago. These people were featured in a newspaper article. Typical customers. And this is typical activities around our sites. That's our Reggie we received this year. Any questions? Scott: Any questions? Brad Johnson: Chairman, Peter Beck who is our attorney would like to also speak to you... Scott: Sure. Peter Beck: Chairman, members of the Commission, Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. We asked Ross to make this slide presentation that you just saw because there were 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 concerns expressed the last time ... exactly what is proposed in terms of this site. What the homes look like and we felt it's a legitimate... and we asked them to come and show. We also, once we had seen it ourselves, thought it would be very helpful for you to see this because I think it demonstrates without a doubt the quality of the project that is proposed here. We have not said that this is going to be identical to the development... but what we do believe very strongly is that this project will be very compatible with the existing development to the north and the proposed higher density development along the highway and will operate as a very appropriate transition between those two levels... We think that Chanhassen has an opportunity to provide the type of housing which doesn't exist in this town right now and to do so with a very high quality developer and very high quality project. And I again would want to reinforce with that said that this project as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all the planning that the city put into the Highway 5 corridor over the past several years that many of us have been attending task force meetings. Farmakes: Our staff report also says that the applicant does not have a specific builder at this time for the development. Is that still current information or not? Peter Beck: No, Ross is the proposed developer at this time... And I think one thing that Ross didn't talk about, just remember the staff report had mentioned about some variety of color and as Ross did mention, this Chanhassen project will include a fair amount of brick on these buildings... color available to them ranging from a beige to earth tone type colors. In this project there will be some... Farmakes: Kate, is it your understanding that the developer, a builder has been part of this or this is a disagreement in the staff report. That's what I'm asking. Aanenson: Well up until, the first review or discussion meeting that we had, my understanding was that they hadn't picked, they were looking at two different developers. Peter Beck: At the time the staff report was written, it was quite accurate but in response to the concerns at the last Planning Commission meeting, again I'm not going to say that there's any contracts entered into, and I don't know for a fact that there are but it's certainly Dr. Conway's intent that if this would be approved, Ross will develop it. Dr. Conway: Can I just speak? I'm Dr. Conway. Scott: Oh please. Step up to the microphone. Dr. Conway: This is kind of a chicken and the egg type of problem. I don't want people to think that there's something going on that's not going on. When we've talked about this 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 development it seems, I did talk with two different developers. We talked with Ross and another fellow and the other fellow in particular had said, well do you want to sign a contract in advance of doing anything and I said, well that doesn't make any sense. We don't know what we're going to have approved for this site. I don't want to enter into an agreement. It's not to your advantage. It's not to mine. I kind of want to know what we can do before we enter into any agreements. Since that time we've worked just with Ross and I think as this process goes through, I haven't made any, I haven't written a contract with Ross. We do have, we've talked about figures in terms of how we approach it and I think that we agree. But we want to get through this process in terms of what we can do before finalizing our arrangement. That's basically the approach we had. I'm not knowledgeable about these matters. My understanding is if you go into a PUD, you have something that's a specific plan. You work it through. We're not approaching this as a PUD. We were bringing this through as a subdivision with the idea that once we get that through, then we can finalize our agreement with the developer. So anyway that's just, I'll be quiet now because I start getting out of my... Any questions I can answer for anybody? Scott: Thank you Mr. Conway. Anybody else from the applicant who would like to speak? This is a public hearing and given the nature of the issues that the neighbors have, one of the things I'd just like to ask, well first of all. Anybody who has something to say is welcome to come up and say it and please identify yourself and give your address. If the neighbors have an individual or individuals who have, are planning on representing, please do so. If you happen to want to come up and speak after someone already has and you agree with them totally, it's certainly appropriate to come up and say that. But what we're looking for here is clear and concise, non -repetitive information and I think we can make the best use of everybody's time and go from there but I'd appreciate that, thank you and who would like to speak first. 1 Mancino: Should we open it? Scott: That's what happens when you only meet every 2 weeks. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Pat Lynch: Just in case it was approved, I was already here. Scott: Well that's good. You make good use of the time that way. Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Pat Lynch: My name is Pat Lynch. 1 live at 7475 Crocus Court. I can guarantee I won't be repetitive because I'm the first one here... There will be 2 or 3 of my neighbors that will be clearly concise and clearly non -repetitive that will speak for me ... as neighbors we have attempted to be responsive to both the issues that were raised in both the conversations with staff in our first discussion here in November. What we attempted to do initially was react to something that people felt angry about. What we've attempted to do since then is to come in and say, what is it that makes most sense. What we've looked at is something that says, and in all due respect to the counsel for the development, an appropriate transition of housing may be in the eyes of the beholder. What we would choose to ask you to consider are plans that would have some integrity with the neighborhood which we represent. The people in Windmill Run. What we've looked for is some integrity with the perceived covenants that people thought they understood prior to the time that we built in Windmill Run. What we've looked for is some congruity in the neighborhood, not exclusively similarities to the houses in which we live but a congruent flow in lying with both the comprehensive plan and the Highway 5 development, what makes the most sense for that neighborhood to grow. Thirdly, we'd like something that is truly well planned as well as truly well built and in looking at the pictures may say something that's well built but it may not be well planned. Fourthly that we're looking at roads and access that makes sense in terms of the safety of our children. In terms of what makes sense for people. Not just to move traffic. So what we've asked our neighbors to do is to come in and share with you what we think about those things. Kevin Joyce, Joan Joyce and Virginia Bell have each have aspects of what is it that we've looked at and what is it that we'd like to do and we will attempt to be very concise. Kevin Joyce, a neighbor... speak to one of those posts. Scott: Thank you. Mr. Joyce. Kevin Joyce: Kevin Joyce, 2043 Brinker Street. I was present at the last meeting on November 2nd and I did address the commission regarding a visit I made to the planning staff the last week in December, 1993. At the time I was in the middle of making a decision on whether to purchase a lot in the Windmill Run development and I was interested in that proposed land just south, that development that we're speaking about this evening. I was told that this area was planned for single family houses. Single family detached homes and this really was an important part of my decision to build in the Windmill Run development. Obviously I was rather shocked when I received the notice from the proposed development of the twin homes and I felt there was some misinformation presented to me by the City of Chanhassen. Clearly I feel this is the basis for a lot of us being here. We purchased with one idea and somebody with something else comes up and I guess it would have had a radical effect on my decision to build in Chanhassen and at Windmill Run if I had the information or was told the proper information of what was being proposed for that development. I'd like to invite a few of my neighbors up and we'll be very, very brief but I think it's important. I Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 don't want to belabor this point but I do want them to get their say on what exactly happened in their purchase of their properties. Dave, Jeff, why don't you all come up. Harberts: Mr. Joyce? Kevin Joyce: Yes. Harberts: If I may interrupt. In the event that this proposal is in it's form, or some form is approved by the City Council, is it your intention to stay in your home or do you have plans to move? Kevin Joyce: It depends. We've come up with some compromises here. We realize that there was going to be development there. We knew there wasn't going to be a cornfield out there the whole time. We did know there was going to be development but we were told it was going to be single family detached homes and we bought our property with the idea that we would be in an integrated family neighborhood. I think that's important. I think these people had the same idea. So that's why I wanted to bring them up but that's a good question. I don't know. I have to find out exactly what's goingto happen with this plan and we have a plan so. Jeff Stone: Good evening. My name is Jeff Stone. We live at 2103 Brinker, which happens to be the street most affected by this development. I represent my wife and two small children who couldn't attend. It's bedtime. We, before signing a purchase agreement, did contact the city planning department and were told by a member of the staff to expect single family housing in that area behind Brinker. Thinking we did the intelligent thing, and with some forethought, maybe we were wrong in our thinking but I can tell you without a doubt, had we known, had we had this information, we would not have built on Brinker Street. And it has crossed our minds and depending on the outcome, it's kind of up in the air whether we'll stay in Brinker for an extended period of time or if we'll just cut our losses and pick up so that's what I have to say. Scott: Good, thank you. Desiree Brown: Hi. My name is Desiree Brown and I live at 2131 Brinker Street and I too am on the same road as... Before purchasing our home we also, as a matter of fact I called the city... about what would be built behind us. I was told that they would be homes, single family detached homes like the ones that we have on Brinker Street. I just feel that we were misled about that because I based my decision on that. It is our first house and I thought I had done everything I could do to get that information and I requested what was going in... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Scott: Thank you. David Jensen: I'm David Jensen, 2173 Brinker Street. I talked to two different city planners. One before we signed our purchase agreement and one after and both of them had told us that it was going to be single family homes. I was kind of surprised when this came along and as far as staying in the area, I don't think I can afford to sell it right now. If you guys want to buy it then I will consider it, but that's all I have to say. Scott: Okay. Amit Diamond: My name is Amit Diamond. I live at 2117 Brinker. I'm located in ... Our real estate agent advised us where to buy a house here and he recommended Chanhassen. Prior to buying a house in Chanhassen we moved to Eden Prairie and with all the heavy development that there is around here and in every development that we looked we saw a combination of single family homes and then twin homes, he advised me not to buy. Anyway when we got to Windmill Run he called and talked to the city planner about ... single family detached houses. That's what we thought. I would not have ... buy a house if I had known that there was ... twin homes. I'm very disappointed and I don't know what I will do ... sell my house. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Susan Reimers: My name is Susan Reimers. I live at 7495 Crocus Court and I too was informed... department here at the city and confirmed what we were told by the sales representative. Of course I thought that was very prudent to do. As to what was going to be built in the area adjacent to our particular ... or subsequent home we were building. And was told that, and I was told that it was to be, and I quote, that the... Harberts: Could you repeat that again please. I didn't catch that last part. Susan Reimers: Because my voice was shaking? That the homes that were going to be built adjacent to the development would be comprised of similar type and size homes ... with the Chanhassen Planning Department, which I did in a conversation with a person on February 7, 1994. This is my agent writing a letter to those of you who will be ... purchased at Windmill Run ... due to my recommendation which was based in part on information received from this particular person. Had this information that the vacant land adjacent to your development might be converted to multi -housing sites, twin homes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, I would not have recommended that you purchase at Windmill Run. Scott: Thank you. 11 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Susan Reimers: And in response to his question. We also do not know whether or not we would stay in this development if there was twin homes adjacent because it is not... Virginia Bell: My name is Virginia Bell. I live at 7476 Crocus Court in Chanhassen. In the last week of March of this year I visited with the planning, people in the planning department in the city prior to our decision to build in Windmill Run. The purpose of my visit was to find out what was going to be developed in the adjacent land. I worked with one of the members of the planning department and asked and I recall the words he said to me. He said you don't have to worry because it will be single family houses. I am also, that concludes the portion of our presentation on that issue. I am going to move into another issue. As Pat ' indicated, at the neighborhood, some of us have looked at the proposed developments and have done some research and done some background work and in addition developed... and Mrs. Joyce will be presenting that. What I'd like to talk to you about is some of the research that we've done and some of the findings that we've come up with and I do have some visuals that I'd like to share with you as well. I'd like to talk about three things. First of all it'd be consistency or inconsistency of the proposed development with the comprehensive plan. Secondly the visual affect that the proposed development would have on this area. And thirdly, the fact that this development may in fact be premature and therefore contrary to the ' ordinance and talk a little bit about that. After hearing from all of our neighbors that they have heard the same thing about single family developments, I was curious as to exactly where this had generated from and I went back and I checked the comprehensive plan out of the library and I did review it. I think that it's fairly clear that that area that we're talking about is designated for low density. When you read the definition of low density in the plan what it says is predominantly single family. That is single family detached. That these neighborhoods will be predominantly single family detached so had I gone the next step before I bought my house and read the comprehensive plan, I probably would have had the same idea that I got from the city planners. That this is an area that was designated for and was going to be predominantly single family housing. The next category that you see in the comprehensive plan is for medium density and that is designated for ... close to the Highway 5. So the area that we're talking about is low density and then along Highway 5 we have the medium density. Medium density is defined in the plan, it of course has a density requirement but it says that it continues to accommodate townhouses. So granted, the comprehensive plan does speak primarily to ... with respect to densities but there also is a clear ' indication that the low density is to be predominantly single family and I think that's what a reader would understood and that's in fact what was represented to the residents before they... Currently I think that the plans or the proposed development is inconsistent with the ' comprehensive plan. Yes, it meets the technical density requirements but I think it is inconsistent with the intent of the plan and with the ... plan indicates predominantly single family housing. I'd like to move on and talk a little bit about the visual effect of the proposed development on the neighborhood and I do have some visuals and I think that ' 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 seeing visuals will also reinforce the notion that the low density that this is designated for is not the right area for the location of this kind of development. What I have are overheads so I'll step over here and if anybody can't hear me, please let me know. We visited the Country Home development in Eagan and in Woodbury and also in Eden Prairie. I don't have any pictures of Eden Prairie because it's not built yet. I think we have to accept that Brad Johnson has given us his best shot in terms of Country Homes and what he intends to build there. This is the entrance to the Country Homes development in Woodbury and the reason I show this is Country Homes market these twin homes as townhomes. And in fact right next to this sign there is a building that says single family home sales office and I went in there and I said, I'd like to get some information on the twin homes. He said, well the townhomes are marketed down there where the sign is pointing to and I said, well I'm not interested in townhomes, I'm interested in the twin homes. And he said, well twin homes are townhomes. You'll need to go down there. Ross Fefercorn: Can I interrupt? That's not my sign. That belongs to... Virginia Bell: Right, but when you and your partner, we inquired about that and with Country Homes and the developer intended. Ross Fefercom: That's not my sign. Virginia Bell: Well let me show you your sign, okay. This is your sign. This, obviously the Country Home sign in front of the Eagan development and these same signs appear in front of the Woodbury development and direct you to both of the developments so the point is, there's no question but these marketed as and dealt with in the marketplace as townhomes. And going back to the comprehensive plan, if you look at the definition of medium density, it says that it's intended to accommodate townhomes. We saw some pictures earlier of the Country Home streetscape and these are the streetscapes that I saw when I went out. These photographs were taken last weekend and this is looking down into what I understood was a street into a cul-de-sac area. I was trying to get a sense of what we would see as residents and what other people in the city would see as they were driving by. One thing that I noticed is that, what you primarily see in the streets are the garages. The fronts of the homes, which we see in a lot of the brochures and a lot of the advertising, they face into each other so the streetscape does not include that. What you see primarily is the garage. Here is one where we're not seeing the garage and this is what we're seeing. This is adjacent to the area that we were just looking at and I think we're still in the Woodbury development here if I'm not mistaken. This is the same view that you saw earlier. This is in the Eagan development and Mr. Fefercorn showed you a picture of this. This is the same. I took a picture standing at almost the same location and this is what it looks like. I guess the reason I show this is the uniformity. This is very monochromatic. I understand there's some discussion about 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 encouraging color choices but what I saw in both Woodbury and Eagan was all the same colors and there's a very, you know there's a sameness to it. This is also in Eagan and it's looking the other direction from what, the direction that we just saw. This is looking up the ' street. You saw looking down the street and the reason I show this was again to show the uniformity and also how close these are to the road. One of the things that struck us when we were looking at this was sort of the lack of traditional yards. Front yards and back yards. ' This is something that we think about with single family homes but you didn't get that feeling when you were in this neighborhood looking at it. And also again the uniformity and what we're primarily seeing again are the garages. The other thing that we looked at in looking at ' the development was how the development was integrated into the area around it and whether it was located near single family housing, and if so, how it was buffered. Up to the single family housing or what buffers there were between the single family housing and these ' townhomes. The Woodbury development, this is looking from the rear of the Woodbury development and what you can see, this is a commercial area. The back of the parking lot and there are, you know gas stations and Holiday type stations and kind of a medium sized ' commercial area. And that's what these twin homes, townhomes are butting up against. On the other side are another set of twinhomes which is the sign that you're referring to and they are a lot more expensive than these. They are units that the sales office told us were a million dollars for both sides. They're very expensive. And then beyond that you get into the single family houses. I think the point that I wanted to make here, this was used as a buffer to commercial or as a transition I guess to commercial and the single family housing that was ' behind this was quite large. So this was sort of at the corner of the single family housing as a transition to commercial. And finally where we see the development of these townhomes adjoining single family, what we saw was a great deal of buffering. Here we have on the left ' the back of one of the twin homes and then single family housing you can see down to the right and the street and then a large embankment and then obviously some, it looks like there's either landscaping or trees that have been there buffering it so there's quite a bit done ito separate the development from one another and none of the streets from this single family homes run into the townhome development. The streets are separate. After I looked at that frankly I find it difficult to envision that kind of development right up against a single family neighborhood of Windmill Run, Royal Oaks Estates. I think they're visually it would be jarring. It's not consistent. It doesn't make a lot of sense frankly to me. The way that it's planned. The two of them right up against each other. In addition, going back again to the ' comprehensive plan, I think the notion of a low density, primarily predominantly single family neighborhood, to me doesn't jive and isn't consistent with the proposal for this kind of a townhome development in that large of a space right up against our single family homes. ' The other issue that I would like to address is one of prematurity. As you know, the ... can't be premature. There has to be adequate roads and ... so forth. Many of the residents in Windmill ' Run are concerned about these issues. The first issue being the road, the access road along Highway 5. I won't belabor this because I know it's been discussed at the prior meeting. We 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 don't know yet where the road is going to be, north or south, and without that designation and knowledge, it seems to us that it's premature to be going in and putting in and approving a development not knowing about where the road is going to be. The other issue is, there are no parks up in this area and there is no, until the road is built, there is no trail access down to Lake Ann. So we will have a much larger neighborhood here with no access to any kind of park facility. So in essence we are... Lastly, and this is an issue that was raised by one of my neighbors who could not be here tonight. Apparently the sewer connection is a second phase of this, is one that's going to come up from the south. I guess underneath TH 5 and there is concern and a question of whether or not that is in fact going to happen and should we be approving development when that, plans for that sewer are not part of ..Those are our concerns and I thank you for your time. Scott: Good, thank you very much. That was very well prepared. Very concise. Thank you. Yes ma'am. Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street and myself and several of my neighbors have put together just a concept. We're not developers. We don't claim to be. It's an idea. We've looked into a lot of different alternatives here and we'd like to show you what we have on our minds with regard to what we would like to see because we feel that is something that is important to use with regards to safety, traffic for our neighborhood and developing and establishing our neighborhood as a separate place... So I have some handouts for you and then I have an overhead to show also. Now what I did is we just copied off of what was sent out to us. This is apparently not to scale with anything but there are three really big issues that I would like to point out with this. One is the concept of the overall plan. The other one is buffers and the third point is the traffic flow with regard to the roads. And first of all to start with, I'd like to point out that the concept we felt that this provides is logical in terms with the fact that you have the single family homes that are already in existence right here and then they end right here where this cul-de-sac ends, right here. We think that it's only logical for this road to continue on to more single family homes as we were expected to see sometime in the future. They would be homes equal in size to our's along with value and lot size. And then that road would go back out onto Galpin so that we can keep our neighborhood completely onto itself here. And beyond that, a little bit closer to Highway 5 would be a park or something like that with buffers and trail systems. I do understand that a lot of us have already paid into this sort of thing with our community and I'm sure we'll be seeing it sometime. I thought this was a logical place to provide something like that and then further on down closer to Highway 5 we'd have the higher density housing. This way there's again, it's a natural progression from one density to another density with again the second buffer inbetween, which goes to my next point. The buffer, whether it's a park or trails or just a large expanse of land with several hills and trees, I think it's really essential that we have something like that because again it divides the two different kinds of 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 neighborhoods and I don't think that it makes for a good neighborhood to have them connected in any way so that's why we have the road ... we feel most strongly about is with regard to safety for our children. Right now, the way our neighborhood exists, there is no public area for them to play in other than each other's back yards so the children end up crossing the street and starting at the age of 3, 2. When they're allowed to be out in the front yard and wander, they do not know the rules and regulations. You know you've got to look both ways. If we were to have traffic coming through our neighborhood and going to some other higher density area, there's absolutely no way our children could be outside and cross the street and go to each other's homes. Even with the children who are old enough to ride their bikes in the streets, there's no way we could allow that. So by providing a street in our neighborhood that comes off of Galpin and goes back out, the only traffic we will have in our neighborhood will be within our own residents and therefore anybody coming from downtown Chanhassen and wanting to go up here is not going to cut through our neighborhood and therefore having a threat to the activities that go on in our neighborhood as far as the children go. Based on those three points, this is what we feel we would like to see. I know that there have been several considerations and we wanted to bring up something here that we thought maybe was the closest to what we've seen so far, which is this layout here. There was some talk about possibly coming across this way and making all of these single family homes, with the larger lots. You know that's a step in the right direction but again, our big fear is that we've got these roads going right through the higher density. We're going to have that traffic going right through our neighborhood. That was the big concern and the other concern again is that there's absolutely nothing with regard to public space for our children to play in and there are no buffers between the two areas. So that's why we feel that this sort of thing is really much more logical. Do you have any questions at all? Scott: Questions? Mancino: Just a clarification from staff and that is in the ... service report the Park and Recreation Commission voted to take full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication. Is that? Generous: That's correct. ' Audience: We can't hear you. Generous: That's correct. The Park Commission believes, there is a Stockdale park planned on the west side of Galpin, right across from this development and they felt that it wasn't a good idea for the city to have a second park in this area. ' Mancino: Did you hear me? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Audience: No. Mancino: Okay. My question was, in the staff report the Park and Recreation Commission has already voted and discussed this development and the decision has been made to accept full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication. So there isn't, the Park and Recreation Commission has not asked for a park in this area from the applicant. And that is something that they are recommending to City Council. Sue Reimers: Sue Reimers, 7495 Crocus Court. My question to you is, does Chanhassen planning plan for having children to cross a 45 to 44 mph road to play in a park? Open ended. Harberts: I don't know but I have a question. What was your expectation when you purchased the house? Did you ask the developer as to what park would be located within your subdivision? Sue Reimers: Yes. And we were told across the road but we lived adjacent to a park in Eden Prairie prior to moving here and it was fully used by the children because they were adjacent to it. We have no intention of using that park because we drive to Lake Ann and we fully expected the development, a further similar development of single family dwelling development to be to the south of us eventually and expect us to be able to get to Lake Ann eventually. Harberts: By what means? Sue Reimers: Roads or. Harberts: By walking? By? Sue Reimers: Walking. Mostly walking or riding bikes. Or I would drive around the other way and avoid sending my children out onto Galpin. We don't even walk on Galpin Road. But that's, you know I didn't know if that would be an option... Farmakes: You're aware that there's a separate commission that deals with the issues of park and recreation. It's not just... Sue Reimers: Okay. So you don't work together at all? Farmakes: Yes we do but I'm just pointing that out as some information as that's part of the process also if you disagree with that... 17 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Sue Reimers: So when they approve something do you, is that said and done? ' Farmakes: Primarily Y the make a recommendation and we get it in our staff report. ' Sue Reimers: They make a recommendation to you and then you go through the process and then recommend to the Council? Farmakes: That's correct. ' Sue Reimers: Okay. So it's one to the other... Conrad: No, they report directly to the City Council. ' Sue Reimers: Oh, okay. ' Farmakes: But it's part of our process and in our information packet that each development that comes into Chanhassen has either a neighborhood park within a development or a private park within a development or in lieu of a park or park space, they dedicate fees to the general ' fund. Sue Reimers: So our money is going across the street? Or across Galpin at this point, is that where our money will be... Scott: Well it's part of the total fund and some of that money can end up at Lake Ann. ' Some of it can end up across the street. There's also a Public Safety Commission that, what we try to do is try to, we have our pockets our expertise. Planning, public safety, park and rec are three of the most active committees and what we do is we rely very heavily, since I don't consider myself to be a public safety expert or a park and recreation expert, I put a lot of credence into what people who have gravitated toward those two committees and it's not very often, we may question what they're doing from time to time but basically speaking we ' trust their judgment and that makes the process go smoother but most people who come in contact with the process if you will, either at the Planning Commission level or at the City Council level but there's a lot of work that goes on at other commissions that are equally as ' important as our's. Sue Reimers: Well thank you for your time. Scott: Sure. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? If someone else would like to come up first, or come up for the first time. If there isn't anyone who would like to come up for the first time, please add additional comments. 1 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Joan Joyce: We did put a lot of time and effort into the plan and concept that we presented and there are several people who would be interested in your personal, your own opinions with regards to whether the plan has good points, bad points. Whether it's something that's feasible in your eyes. We'd like to... Scott: I think what we can do is when we close the public hearing there's, for those of you who haven't been to a Planning Commission meeting, what we do is prior to making a recommendation or individual recommendations to the City Council, we make our comments and the pluses and minuses of what we see and then basically supports the reason why we vote one way or the other so we have a public discussion process and we react. What we do is we react to all of the facts that we have seen at a meeting and try to put them into some sort of a format so then we can make our decision then so that's part of the process that happens after the public hearing. Joan Joyce: Okay. So therefore there are no questions on your part at this time? Scott: Not from me. Joan Joyce: We did such a good job you don't have any questions? Scott: As I mentioned before, it's well prepared and very concise and that's what, when we have questions that's usually when something is not easily understood so you've done the kind of job we dream of. Good. Anybody else like to speak? Steve Bell: I'm Steve Bell. I live at 7476 Crocus Court and I'm not as well organized as my wife. This is my notes... I wanted to tell you a story that I just read in Readers Digest ... and I think it's a little pertinent... A guy was talking about when he was younger and he joined the Cub Scouts. And when he joined the Cub Scouts he ... they would set up the chairs and they would let you look at those chairs and then they'd blindfold him and let him walk through it... and I think we kind of forget that ... the chairs get moved a lot, so if ..we're still a little upset the chairs got moved. I'd like to address the fact that, I agree that this is a premature development in that with the access road to the south not yet determined, this plat, if it did gc south, and then the whole phase two of this proposal is moot. They'd have to change and start all over again and that seems to me that that's not a very finalized plan. When you have to. --that control to a second phase. There is no sewer to that second phase. It has to come 3/4 of a mile up to the school first and then maybe they can piggy back and get under the road next year but maybe not next year which would put it a year down the road. And I'm not so sure, I'm not a drainage expert but I haven't really been sold on the fact that this drainage is well taken care of here yet on this property. How it will drain and pool so that's all I'm going to say about that. With respect to the access road, 19 where it will Chanhassen has , Cll! Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 made some extraordinary and gotten some extraordinary commitments from extraordinary demands on the design of their buildings along the corridor. From Taco Bell I understand... their own paint scheme. They don't want this ugly thing that Taco Bell always does. This is along the corridor and granted these are nice townhomes from the pictures. They're all the same but they do not, I would find it hard to believe that you would require a national corporation like Taco Bell to change their color scheme and then you would say, but we don't care if we have 92 townhomes where the city Planning Commission has told us that maybe 70 is what you normally would put in this spot to begin with. So we're already at a higher density. 1'd like to address the Park Board approval. The Park Board has approved this. The Park Board has approved this because they're getting fees in lieu of land dedication to finish the Stockdale park and I would venture to guess that they would have fees in lieu of land dedication from a single family development, they would approve it just as they need the money for the Stockdale park, according to their Minutes. They did express a concern as to the way this development was proposed and it's in their Minutes and you've got a copy. There's been some concern raised, and particularly by a former City Council member ... that there's really a lot of pressure on the city to do affordable housing. I would like to think... that this would somehow fit into... affordable housing. This is just another type of housing. It is not by any means affordable housing. And last but not least, I ain't never moving again is my concern so if what goes in there, I'm not moving ... so thank you. Harberts: In your opinion, what's affordable housing? Steve Bell: I don't know if it's my opinion but affordable housing I believe is closer down to $80,000.00. As a matter of fact I've heard the figure of 40. If you get down to where a family of 4 making over the poverty level, which is what $14,036.00, you're going to have to get down, way down ... so there's no way that even the base price I believe on these homes are $129,000.00? Ross Fefercorn: It's not affordable housing. Steve Bell: Right. And that's what the sales people told us, $129,000.00 was the base up to $189,000.00 so it was a little shocking to hear the prices. But by no means should there be pressure to ... and I also talked to Workman's office. Tom Workman's office and to get an idea of what the Metropolitan Council had in ... information of the sewer lines and we ... Maple Grove and the legislator who's in trouble for... He told me that as long as the city has a comprehensive plan, and the city sticks with the comprehensive plan, they tend to go along with what the city decides. Staff is recommending that this fits the zoning. That this development will fit the zoning if we change the zoning and I think my wife made an excellent case that that may be true except we don't think the zoning fits the spirit or the intent of the comprehensive plan and so yes, if this housing development would fit that 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 zoning but does that zoning fit the comprehensive plan and we have read it. We've not read it as much as you guys have but we have read it and we feel that there's a lot more to be considered on this as far as how this would fit with the plan. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Rick Manning: My name is Rick Manning. I'm at 7460 Windmill Drive. I had a question I guess. There seems to be some great confusion and some disagreement between the commission and the city from the staff at the last meeting regarding the alignment of the frontage road and I'm wondering if there actually is a plan by the city. If that disagreement has been settled or if the planning staff actually knows what the alignment of the frontage road is at this point right now. Aanenson: I'm not sure I understand what his question is. Rick Manning: The way I understood it at the last meeting, there has been a resolution passed for the alignment of the frontage road, whether it would be a southerly or northerly alignment, is that correct? Harberts: What's the current position of the City Council? Aanenson: The most recent one that is not on record. That was in a workshop. That was a public meeting, was the northerly alignment. There was on the public record that was a resolution for the southern alignment so until we hold the final public hearing. Harberts: So Council action right now is. Aanenson: It's the northern. Harberts: It's north. But there's been discussion at the public workshops that it's south. Aanenson: No, other way around. Harberts: Okay, sorry. Rick Manning: So it hasn't been resolved. Harberts: Well it has been resolved by Council. It's just a matter of if the Council decides to revisit it. Because if they're on ... resolution, that's the direction. 21 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Farmakes: How can it be decided prior to the public hearing? ' Harberts: But there's a resolution, that's got to be ... action until they take any other actions. ' Farmakes: Then what are they holding public hearings on? Aanenson: The resolution was for the environmental assessment document. The final public ' hearing will be held when MnDot and the Federal Highway Administration sign off on the environmental assessment document. The City Council did say during that information meeting there was a resolution for the southern alignment. Since that time they had a ' workshop that was public. That they revisited. They brought back in the consultant on the study, Barton-Aschman and Bill Morrish from the University of Minnesota to go back and revisit the purpose of doing the whole study and they concluded that they probably should think about the northern alignment and there seemed to be a consensus to go back to the northern alignment. Scott: I guess what's the bottom line? a ' Aanenson: The applicants they asked us what we believe right now the feeling of the Council is and we said that we're not certain but the latest was the northern alignment and that's the direction we gave them. Obviously the City Council, if this gets to the Council ' before the Council's held the hearing, the Council's going to have to make a decision. Scott: Okay. And then the alignment that's shown on the preliminary plat. Aanenson: Is the northern alignment. ' Scott: Is the northern alignment, okay. Aanenson: Correct. ' Mancino: And they can make a decision based on this plat versus having a public hearing on the EA document? ' Aanenson: They may say it's not consistent with what, they want the southern alignment. It will force them to make a decision. Rick Manning: My next question was, if this plan should be approved, could that force that decision and that would ... and that could happen? t 1 22 • Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Rick Manning: If this is approved, that frontage road. Farmakes: It doesn't force the decision. We just make a recommendation. To force the position certainly it is another domino set up. Nutting: They can choose to table it at Council until. Farmakes: Or to deny it. Nutting: Hold the public hearing and finalize it. Rick Manning: But it seems to be a major issue within the city on whether or not to take the southerly or the northerly alignment. I guess shouldn't more emphasis be put on making that decision before a development makes that decision for the city? Scott: Well as far as this development goes, the first phase will not be affected in a major sense by the position of the road but the second phase of the southerly portion of the project will definitely be impacted by it. Farmakes: Part of the whole situation, I don't know if you've followed Highway S but essentially what made it difficult was that it was essentially a wash. North and south cost about the same. EPA the same. Everything was just about the same and the only difference that we spent arguing about was philosophical and how it drives development. Rick Manning: How? Farmakes: How it categorizes or corridor or kind of compartmentalizes everything and where it falls. That's essentially what the argument was about so just, sorry to interrupt you but I thought maybe they don't know. That they somehow they think we're making that decision and made a recommendation. Rick Manning: Does this development include the frontage road? The first phase of this development does include the frontage road. Scott: The southerly portion of the first phase is actually shown as the northern route. Rick Manning: I guess I'd like to echo Joan Joyce's comments about public safety and the safety of our children. I have three that play in the street and ride their bikes and should our 23 ' Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Planning g development be attached by that road into this twin home development, that road continues on to the frontage road and I know that people are going to cut through our development to get to that frontage road and down out to Target. I know because I would do it myself so I'm very concerned about where that frontage road goes and the fact that it will be... Scott: Okay, thank you for your comments. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. ' Bret Davidson: My name is Bret Davidson. I live at 2200 Majestic Way. I was not at the previous one so I'm a little bit at a loss ... My biggest concern is the traffic and the road alignment. I mean we all expect, at least around where I am, we expect roads through our ' neighborhoods to carry our residential traffic. My concern with the plan I see here is we may have happening exactly what Mr. Manning just said and that is we start using our residential ' neighborhood as a short cut for this frontage road or the access road to Galpin Boulevard. I would think there would be ways that you could change that or you could look at changing that either by tying Windmill Run. If you let the plat go through in a little more westerly position so it takes a couple of turns. If you were going to short cut through there or to have a temporary cul-de-sac on Windmill Run where it would tie into the access road until the access road travels all the way through. My biggest concern is that we don't, as this ' development comes on board and this comes about, that we don't have a situation where we're using a residential street for short cuts. There's a lot of ways we can fix that. By putting a temporary cul-de-sac across that or moving the alignment but the way that it's proposed right ' now, it's almost a straight shot off of the frontage road or the access road, Windmill Drive all the way back to Galpin. And the problems that we have at the corner of Galpin and TH 5 it's going to significantly increase the traffic through our residential neighborhood. It's not our ' residential traffic. It's people that are taking a short cut. So I'd like to ask you to take a look at that and how you approve it and make sure that we don't have traffic through there that's not neighborhood traffic. ' Scott: Hey Dave. Could you talk a little bit about the connection to Galpin that's shown on the northwest portion of this development and how that, when is that going to be made ' relative to when the units are going to be occupied. Hempel: Let's see, with the first phase of development proposed to have access out onto ' Galpin Boulevard... south from the Windmill Run development. The second phase then where they extend Windmill Run probably down to connect to the frontage road. ' Scott: So without the frontage road there, just generally taking human nature of taking the straight shot from Point A to Point B, that people in my opinion and you express your opinion, people are going to make their right in or their left in into the new development by ' the connection that's made specifically for that purpose. You see people coming in through ' 24 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 the other development and going south to get into their development? And I'm just, my human nature would say that's going to be pretty much the point and unless someone is going off on a scenic route, they're probably not going to be getting involved and driving through Windmill Run to get in and out of this first phase when we don't have the frontage road in. Is that kind of what your thought is? Hempel: Right. When the frontage road is, the most direct route to Galpin and to the north would be the frontage road from a speed traffic standpoint. Going through a residential neighborhood is slower. It's out of the way. Scott: So the frontage road does have to be in and connected all the way through to Galpin. I mean taking a look at this I would say at least myself, I would not be making a right turn into the twin home area. I mean I'd just continue straight out to Galpin and go up so I mean I don't see a particular reason why anybody would go through there. Conrad: But Dave, is there a potential. I don't see the neighborhood connection as a problem. I agree with you Joe. But let's say, is there a possibility for the frontage road to be built through Lake Ann, through this development up to this development but not being connected to Galpin... Scott: Yes. That would be a problem. Conrad: I thought that was where you were going. Scott: That we would not want to do. Then they will take shortcuts. So the question is, is that a possibility? Will we force the connection to Galpin to happen when we build the frontage road, whether it's north or south. Will that definitely be there on the same time frame that the balance of the frontage road all the way to CR 17 would be built? Hempel: Yes, that's correct. The frontage road is on our state aid route and in order for that route to be built, the frontage road would have to be connecting from two other state aid roads, which would be Galpin ... this one section of frontage road to this development and carry it east to Lake Ann, no. That would definitely pull the traffic through there. Scott: Also too the, probably the development, I believe it's, I don't know if it's Mr. Gorra's. I believe it's Mr. Gorra's property. We're probably not going to be building a frontage road there until he decides he wants to put forth a project so basically the bottom line is, we're not going to get any assistance from the state unless we connect to Galpin. Hempel: That's correct. 25 I 1 I] 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Scott: If we don't get assistance, we're probably not going to build it. Hempel: Right. Scott: Okay. Well as long as I understand where the money is coming from, I have a high amount of certainty that that connection, I mean I believe what you're saying but then that's the state getting involved and as a major partner to this particular construction project. Hempel: It would be of a financial... Mancino: So one last point to clarify. We could do Phase I and Phase II. Allow the right- of-way to preserve frontage road. Build Outlot A. And we can't build Outlot A without the frontage road, correct? I mean we're just not going to build the segment either from Galpin to the end of this property. Would we do that? Hempel: I don't believe we would, no. Too short of a stretch. We would extend that further on to the property... Scott: So the primary access would be from here and there wouldn't be any access to Outlot A from Highway 5 at all. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Yeah, okay. Bret Davidson: Can 1 just ask a question? So in that... until that was finished would be a temporary cul-de-sac going on to a stop sign then? Hempel: Phase I it would be a temporary cul-de-sac. Bret Davidson: And then with Phase II? Mancino: With Phase II it would be too. Hempel: Phase II, I believe that we would want to see the frontage road construction. Scott: There'd be no access. Aanenson: It's not going anywhere. It's not connecting with anything. It doesn't connect with TH 5. It doesn't go anywhere so it's not serving any purpose except it's an interior street 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 for those front facing lots. It's not connecting to TH 5. It's not going across Mr. Gorra's property. Mancino: So you could stop and have a temporary cul-de-sac right here. Bret Davidson: So what we're understanding is prior to that being hooked up to ... hooked up to the west. So there's no way we'd have a short stub there to make a short cut? Scott: No. Bret Davidson: Okay. That's my concern. Scott: I'm glad you raised your point. Yes sir. Rick Manning: When I raised the concern about traffic going through Windmill Drive, it actually would start through the Majestic Oaks neighborhood and then continue on through Windmill Drive and down into the frontage road. As I'm looking at that as development that's going to be done on Galpin Boulevard, you look at the school. You look at the 200, I think it's Centex townhomes across the street on the south. The southwest corner. When you look at Lundgren and they're developing 250 homes down the road. You look at Lake Lucy with 43 lots now. As the development that's going to be coming, I think you can be pretty assured that that traffic at that corner, at that intersection is going to back up all the way to Windmill Run. It's not going to flow through there. People aren't going to be able to get to the frontage road, is my concern. I shouldn't say that with, I mean that's my concern is that people won't even be able to get to that frontage road. When you think about the cars that are going to be stopped at that intersection. Scott: Well if they were not going to signalize that intersection like they're planning to in concert with the new elementary school, absolutely. But I would say just prior to the elementary school being open, that's going to be a signalized intersection. Rick Manning: And I'm taking that into consideration even with the signal. Think of the cars that are going to be coming out of the neighborhood. Lundgren alone. You've got to figure about 350 cars every morning. Our neighborhood. Then the townhome development. I mean signals or not, I'm pretty confident that those cars are going to be backed up on that road and they'll be backed up a long ways, long enough that I think people will be cutting through Majestic Way on the way to Windmill Drive and cutting through. Scott: Okay. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Amit Diamond: I'm not so good public speaking so I try. We have tried to reason and to bring up ... and we also tried to talk to the developer and we had that same speech over here I think about a week ago and we asked him a question and we said ... and the city asked him to put some single family homes as a buffer and I got to tell you, I got the answer as a straight no because the answer was that this developer doesn't build single family homes. Or single family detached houses. I'm not a builder but I think if you build a building, it doesn't matter what you build ... so I couldn't get any answer why he hasn't cooperated with the city in bringing up this ... or put up a buffer of single family homes... most amount of money for financial gains. I personally, I got to tell you, I didn't know the name the city of Chanhassen up to a year ago when I checked with this state and I didn't know what Edina meant or I didn't know what Hopkins was or all this and I just basically hired somebody familiar with this place and he said, go to Chanhassen. They learned from the mistakes that Eden Prairie did. Eden Prairie is over populated. Put houses here and put houses there. Single family or ... there's a mix and it didn't work out too well. City of Chanhassen's more, he told me, is learning from their mistakes and is going to put in whatever low density. Is going to ... and not to combine so much high density in order to ... so I don't know the history of Highway 5 or what... I know what we were told, or at least I was told by my realtor that is who I trust... this place was going to be single family detached houses. I'm asking the city Planning Commission that if you do it anyway of changing -the plan development and have a developer to listen to the neighborhood ... I don't think we're going to lose so much money. I think they're going to be the same amount of money that there is now. And I do ask the property owner, if he has anything to say, to what we have concerns. The reason that we bought the houses ... and thank you very much. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: A question for staff. In terms of what the staff report reports versus what the developer has shown us tonight in terms of increased landscaping and buffering. Does the staff report incorporate the little green marks that I saw on the overhead? What has the developer, is the staff report accurate in other words? Generous: Yes. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Conrad: And that's what the developers has done. So there's a significant amount of vegetation. The buffering, what is the buffering between the two areas? How many trees? Bob, do you know? Generous: Boy, I didn't count them. Conrad: We know there are going to be how many trees on this site? 300 some. Generous: Well there's 357 I believe all total. Conrad: And today there are how many? Generous: On the original plan they had half of that. What they have now, there's two stands of trees. Maybe 18,000 square feet. I've had BRW said they estimate that it was less but they went with our numbers. Just inbetween these two developments it was. Conrad: Has the developer done what you've asked them to do in terms of buffering the two sites? Generous: I believe so. They provided the vegetative transition or distinction between the two developments. Conrad: Dave, the 10% grading issue. It's not in the staff report. It's there but in the motion there's nothing relating to it. Does that mean you're comfortable? Hempel: It wouldn't be the only street to have a 10% grade. We have compromised in other subdivisions to reduce grading to save trees. If we had had an acceptable landing area in the bottom of the intersection there. Conrad: Do you have control over that? Hempel: Yes, we would have control with the final plans and specifications. Conrad: Okay. There's a part in the motion that talks about housing styles and colors. We hit this one all the time. We can't dictate how many this and that but I'm curious. Every time we talk about this we say well staff take care of it. How do you take care of it other than making sure that the developer provides those options? Do we have any teeth? I think the community brings up a real valid point in terms of styles and monotony and I think this development is different than what they've seen. The community. But still it seems like a fairly upscale development but how do we assure variety? 29 F L Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Generous: Yeah, that's one issue we raised the first time and that's something that Brad and I have been discussing ever since the first report came out. How can we assure that? Well. Conrad: What do you do because the last time we just, the last development two weeks ago we said the same thing. Generous: Well they had a site plan approval so they gave us the specific building types that ' were different. The applicant has said that they're going to provide options for this. I don't know. Aanenson: I think if there's a concurrence, and maybe Peter can tell me this, if there's concurrence and you want to make it a condition, if they're agreeing that they're going to provide various colors, we can certainly make that a condition of approval. But that was always, and in Bob's original staff report, that was one of our concerns is the monotony and... visual impact. And changing the colors we believe is one way to break up that monotony. Conrad: Just a quick aside. Is this a case where we don't have the control we'd like? Aanenson: Well it's a standard subdivision. We don't get into the business of colors on a standard subdivision and that's the point that Brad made originally but I think as Peter indicated, or someone from their team had indicated that they'd be willing to look at that as a condition. Conrad: That one concerns me but I think we need to work with the developer so they will but I don't know that we do have the control on that based on our subdivision ordinance right now. I think we've talked about the other issues that I was concerned with. The other thing Mr. Chairman that I've heard that always bothers me is communication. It's folks hearing one thing and I guess it's easy to misinterpret. It's also easy to, I'll be brief. We heard too many people say they heard something other than what could have been allowed and I think at some other time, not tonight, I think we should take that issue up and make sure we know how that happens. It's extremely important that people know what's going in. Extremely important and I guess we should just be very updated on how the staff communicates the process so it's really clear communication. Those are my only points Mr. Chairman. Scott: Good, thank you. Diane. Harberts: I support the concept of the development. I'd like to see a little bit better transition though between the two divisions. It would certainly be my preference to see a PUD. I think the value, integrity is there of the site. I tried to locate other similar sites I guess in terms of transition of twin homes, townhomes, whatever you want to call them to single family occurs. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 It's happens. It seems to work. People seem to be living there. My understanding Kate with regards to, I think I'm a little concerned. Ladd maybe touched on it and I don't know if that was the area in terms of the communication. In terms of what to expect if I was a homeowner. Is it my understanding that the land, the current zoning for the land, low density. No, I'm sorry. It's low density residential? Aanenson: The current zoning is agricultural. Harberts: Oh agricultural, sorry. And that's where the representations were made by staff perhaps that usually in those cases that it is single family detached homes, is that correct? Generous: I can specify what I said. Harberts: Well in terms of the density of the homes. Generous: Yeah, we say single family homes. Harberts: Is usually what it is. Generous: Right. Harberts: But because of this rezoning that is being asked from us, to consider that or the opportunity for I guess a higher density of homes or other than detached single family homes, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Harberts: And so that's one of the things we're acting on is if we want to change it from an agriculture to a zoning that would allow for more of a density of homes. Aanenson: What it's zoned right now is Agricultural Estates. The comprehensive plan, which is adopted by the City Council, guides it for future development. It's guided for low density. Low density is 1 to 4 units an acre. Harberts: Which typically has been single family homes? Aanenson: Exactly. That's the way it was indicated. They said predominantly single family. That doesn't mean that other alternatives. We told you tonight there are other alternatives for you to consider. That could be a PUD with 11,000 square foot minimum lot size. We've got 31 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 those throughout the city. They've come forward with something that is consistent with the density requirement of 1 to 4 units an acre, which is considered low density. Harberts: But in your experience, or in the city's experience, this is the first type of change of this nature, isn't it for the city? Aanenson: Is it the first application for a duplex or twin home type? Harberts: Yeah, that nature. Aanenson: No, we had one. We had one... Scott: We had zero lot line twin homes. Aanenson: We had Spinnaker Wharf. Scott: Yes, thank you. Mancino: But we denied that. Aanenson: Because they were asking for an up zone to medium density. This isn't asking for an up zone to medium. It's staying within the guided zoning. Harberts: So in that one it wasn't the rezoning request wasn't. Aanenson: They were asking for, to go to a medium density because the way the ordinance reads, in order to less than, if you're going to go with a PUD, the minimum lot size is 11,000 square feet. Mancino: That was a PUD? Aanenson: You wanted to do PUD because we encourage them for architectural reasons. But if you want to do a smaller than 11,000 square foot lot, you have to have medium density zones which means you have to up zone it. Okay, so they were going beyond what was guided in the comprehensive plan. You felt uncomfortable doing that and the Council concurred. They felt uncomfortable upzoning it and opening the opportunity for higher density, which would be the next 5 to 8 units an acre. Harberts: ...but anyway. I guess I'm going to, you know I see these pictures. I think they look nice and they look like very nice homes. I was commenting to Ladd that they have a 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 higher value than what my 3 year old home is. Single family home. If I was to look at this, my only hesitation is that I'd like to see a little bit more of a transition between the single family homes and the twin homes. I think the twin homes are nice. They seem to meet, or are equivalent or exceed the lot sizes of the single family homes but I believe the foot pads, as I understood it from the last meeting were similar in size. I'm not aware of what the values are. If I recall, when those gentlemen from Windmill came in with the development it was somewhere around $130,000.00-$150,000.00 but I don't recall. For some reason that's what sticks in my mind. I guess I'm sitting on the fence right now. I guess I would like to see it as a PUD. There always are some signature pieces where we feel it enhances the development I guess for what we like to see at Chanhassen. I think the gentleman, the last resident that spoke made a good comment which was, we do care. We do take, we look at the details in our subdivisions that come in and under a PUD it would certainly allow that. I guess with regards to public safety. I know I received a letter dated December 5th and it talked about that it would not be safe to be routing multiple... housing traffic through streets lined with single family housing. David, do we have any information on records that would lead us to support that? That this might be a public safety issue. Again, 1 look throughout the city and I've seen some of this but I don't know that there's that kind of public safety issue. Given my professional life, I deal with things like that so I guess I'm asking if there's anything on record to help us understand if there is a public safety issue here. If this has been presented to the Public Safety Director. Hempel: This has been submitted to the Public Safety Department, building department. The comments generally come back from the Fire Marshal and street names and so forth. The street system proposed for this development is identical to the single family development to the north ... it's going to be a similar street section that you have ... townhomes in Chaparral I believe it's called just west or east of Powers Boulevard to the north here a little bit. I'm not aware of any problems with traffic. There's a normal type... In fact they probably have less vehicle trips in a day than... Harberts: Thank you. I guess I would certainly be willing to support this if I was convinced that that transition was there with the Windmill development and this one because that is an issue that we seem to be very sensitive to. I'm not convinced yet that that transition is there. That I'm comfortable with so I think at this point I would be more intent to deny this because I'm not convinced that that transition is there and that's what my big issue is with it. Scott: What kind of transition would you support? Harberts: If there was more of a physical barrier. Maybe if it was a berm or something. I'm not too sure in terms of how heavy the vegetation is there to make that kind of transition. Clearly a simple one would be to maybe have a transition of single family homes or 33 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 something of that nature. Maybe less number of twin homes in that area. I don't know. I'm ' certainly open to it. I'm just not convinced that that transition is basically at the level that we want to be sensitive to. Otherwise I think it's a good proposal. Did they go on record saying this is the developer or is it just that they're thinking of it? ' Brad Johnson: We'll you o on record that that's the development if approve it. g P Y PP Harberts: I know there was a comment from the attorney that it would be similar. Again in a PUD we're able to be comfortable with testing the interest of the residents as well as the community in a PUD. I would like to see a PUD. Even if it came back in a similar fashion. I'm alright with it but it's just the little pieces that I think with the input ... the material from the community, they've taken the time to provide input to this process. I think this process needs to listen to them but we also have a responsibility to the development. To the people that own the land. That's what the role of government is and ... I see that's what our role is. If I would see a little bit more of a transition I would be in full support of this project. I'd like to see more projects of this nature in Chanhassen and I'd like to go through a meeting without mentioning Myron Orfleld's name because I think he's way off base. Scott: Thank you for your final comment. Wait a minute, hit the microphone 3 times. Anyway, Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to start with a little different tact, although I don't disagree with anything I've heard so far. A property owner mentioned the term which came first, the egg or the chicken. That's an interesting concept here because we see this over and over again. We have a piece of farmland. You have a highway and you have a MUSA line that was extended to the west. First came the highway, then came the MUSA line and then came development. If you take that area of farmland which it's currently zoned for, after the highway and MUSA, then came Windmill Run. And you sort of ask yourself what dictates development in a situation like this. Some of you who have moved here from other states may have come here from mature communities where you just didn't deal with this sort of stuff. The houses have been there for years, or decades, and you just never dealt with it. What we have here in Chanhassen is sort of a fluid situation, and as I'm sure some of the homeowners who called me anyway and tried to discuss this issue. This is a fluid situation. This property is zoned Ag Estate. That's what it's currently zoned at so if you come in and ask a recommendation or you purchase property for single family when it was changed for your particular area, Windmill Run, you had to know that there's no guarantees from anybody at the city. That when that zoning is changed, what it's going to be. There's guides. A comprehensive plan but there's a process that follows and that's what we're doing right now today. We're going through that process. There's community input of surrounding property owners, we have developers, we have city staff and we have something that we haven't 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 discussed here in great detail which is Highway 5 which really precipitated this whole thing. That's the egg. As we expanded that and we looked at which route was going to access to the city on the northerly side of TH 5, we spent 2 years dealing with that. So for some of you who have just moved into the community, part of this besides dealing with the buffer on your development, that we're dealing with here, is we're dealing with an access road that goes all the way from downtown Chanhassen out to TH 41. And that also defines how that property is going to develop. Not only the property to the south but also the property to the east of you. And ultimately the property to the west. So you need to be knowledgeable about what is happening with Highway 5. And what is happening with that access road. I think Kate discussed the issue of chronologically where the city is at with which route. I'm concerned and I want to touch upon that briefly so it may seem like I'm jumping off to another point but I'm concerned that we have a vote on record to the southerly route and then we have a workshop meeting where consultants were called in to change that back to the northerly route and now we have a development showing us the northerly route again. It certainly would have been a good idea to at least keep Minutes of the workshop meeting then or at least have pro and cons being sold at that meeting as to where that route goes. I think the correct terminology would be to say that the Highway 5 task force, the majority supported a northerly route. There were dissenters to that direction. The majority of the commission supported the northerly route but there also were dissenters to that. If the city was going to get together in a workshop situation, I think also there should have been information provided to those who dissented. Not just bringing in people who support the northerly route. In my conversations with our consultants, it was a wash. And what we're dealing with here is really there's sort of a hidden agenda here and I don't mean that there's a plan on the part of staff or the consultants but what this is, what is hidden here is that where that road goes really defines how these properties develop and it compartmentalizes where those densities are going to go. Now to me you start at the beginning and this is why I voted against it both on the task force and on the commission, against the northerly route between Lake Ann and Galpin. Because it defines two ... And I realize that some of the people from Windmill Run have not been following that park. Out of site, out of mind. It's farther away from you than the adjacent property but it's really going to affect the development of the properties around you so please become involved in that process. This is part of what goes on here. You're probably going to do this a lot more than you want to in moving to an area like Chanhassen but you've got to be part of this process. In here to complain. Call your elected officials and so on. I think ultimately what should go there is a PUD situation all the way to the highway. I would like to see the southerly route of the city acquiring a buffer along the highway as well as additional single family, at least two rows up by Windmill Run. The reason being is that if someone comes in now to purchase those properties, if they're adjacent to twin homes, townhomes, whatever you want to call them, then the developer's dealing with that. He's not putting that burden on the adjacent single family detached housing. That purchaser can make the decision whether they wish to purchase that single family home next to the twin homes. 35 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 That's their decision to make. As to the highway issue, I agree with you Joe. That you ' would not be driving that in that direction. But certainly again, premature to be discussing this highway situation when we don't know where that access road goes. In dealing with the issue of color schemes. I think the comment was, you're seeing this type of housing in Eden ' Prairie, on the ends here as you come into town by the Press. You're seeing large roads, the same colored houses and we've discussed this issue. It's cheaper to paint all the houses one color. And it's the economics of building. Certainly if you buy 100 of something, it's ' cheaper than if you buy 20 of this and 20 of that. It is disturbing, it looks like barrack housing eventually because of the similarity of that development. The last person that we had in here I think had 5 or 6 different colors but they were all muted types of colorations. I'm ' not sure if that's the current trend in that type of housing or not but what we're seeing up here is not. They're all gray or beige and so on. So variety I think again if you're trying to make a transition between single family, or what you see in single family homes, to that twin home situation where you have something that matches. As this stands currently, just to touch briefly on the issue, we're building this type of housing next to Highway 5. What I can envision as a row all the way out to TH 41, from what I see. Because we're looking to bring in, currently as we're looking at this, a retirees who want to buy $250,000.00 houses that they don't have to mow the lawn on. Certainly we're not looking at subsidized housing or low ' income housing based on these pricing structures that we've heard here. They seem to be higher medium priced considerably than the housing that's in Windmill Run. So that's not an issue. So if we're going, if we're driving this type of higher density housing along TH 5 and we need all that statistically, what is that we're accomplishing here? We're building more medium cost homes at $250,000.00? That certainly isn't helping the workers in United Mailing or whatever we were told that we need here. So I don't think that it's going to hurt ' anything statistically if there's a couple of rows of single family housing up there to buffer this situation. We're not losing any low income units that I know of. The issue of the park situation and going across, what is it? I believe 117 is a county road, is it not? Typically the ' proposal is lowering speed limits on these types of roads come with development where, as long as there's 7 or 8 farms, they're 50 mph. If you start getting 700-800 homes in there, it's no longer necessarily true that the county's going to maintain a 50 mph speed limit. Again, ' that's a jurisdiction situation in the county. But I would think for those of you who have been here a short period of time, we're also wrestling in the Highway 5 issue with how the trail system works and winds up at Minnewashta or goes over to Lake Ann and how these things ' also will be interwoven, so that's another reason also for you to become involved and knowledgeable about how this Highway 5 thing is working. I think that's it. I think I've given enough ... high points that have come up but I would vote to deny this based on that it's ' premature. Scott: Does that raise a bigger issue about any other developments that we might see that ' would come in prior to having this access boulevard formally platted? 1 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Farmakes: We can take the position that we will let the development drive where the road goes or that we will put in the road and let the developments follow the road. There's going to be one that's going to start the process and that's this one here and that's probably why it's out in front of us. That's probably why it has the northern route. Scott: So your thought process is that we should have a formal location of this road before we start entertaining development? Farmakes: Absolutely because where that road goes is going to affect the property to the east and the west. Mancino: That was one of the main purposes of having a Highway 5 task force. Was to be proactive. Farmakes: So what we're getting here is we're getting development coming down from the north driving where this road goes and it shouldn't. It should be the other way around, in my opinion. If you look at the intent statement of Highway 5, where it should go. Scott: Okay. Ron. Nutting: I guess first question for staff is, I'm still struggling a little bit with the definition of low density and there is the one piece which is the zoning and the units, and then there's the other which is predominantly single family and how did you resolve those two with this development in terms of. There's one piece that says predominantly single family which does not require to imply totally single family. But then there's the units issue which the development does comply with but. Generous: Well basically when it says predominant single family it's just a descriptive of the type of development that is taking place in Chanhassen. It's not prescriptive. The prescription is that development in the low density land use is between 1.2 and 4 dwelling units per acre. Implementation of the comp plan is through the zoning ordinance which provides, in this case with three different zoning alternatives for the property. The PUD, the RSF or the R-4 zoning categories. In this instance the developer brought forward the R-4 zoning which would permit mixed low density, twin home and detached single family. Nutting: Okay. I'd also like to just elaborate a little bit more on Ladd's first question in terms of the vegetation and the barrier that is proposed. What type of vegetation are we talking about? What will this look like winter time? Summer time. What is the plan and is that cast in stone or. 37 11 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Aanenson: We can ask them to address that. Mancino: Is there any berming to it? Nutting: Yes, that was part of my question because that was one of the issues raised by the residents in terms of. Peter Beck: The plan shows a combination of...in fact to address Commissioner Harberts question about the transition, Ross will be happy to put in virtually any kind of plant material in almost any amount that the Planning Commission would like to see. His plan shows what the ordinance requires. From his point of view that is far less than what he's going to do and if the Planning Commission wants to see you know a lot more along that edge, it will be put there. A berm could be put there. If that is an issue that's of great concern to the Planning Commission. It can be, as I say, virtually any level of landscaping that you think would be necessary. Staggered rows of evergreens on a berm of course is the maximum if there's one wall back there or something... little more aesthetic approach would be fine too but we will not let this project fall because there aren't enough trees there. We will put in whatever. And if you want to leave that to your, if you want to give your staff some direction on how we should go there, I can assure you that it won't be an issue that we felt they're asking for too much. Scott: Any other comments? Nutting: I guess that's issue number one. Issue number two, echoing the issue of varying the color scheme. I've heard the previous discussion. In terms of going forward in the condition I would like to see some working together between staff and developer to provide a reasonable color scheme differential in the process to break it up so it doesn't look like the Rottlund development on Dell Road and Highway 5. I've been on the commission a year and I don't know how many times we've come up with these issues of the cart before the horse and it's happened time after time after time and I have a hard time disagreeing with a lot of those comments on that point. I also struggle with what we are supposed to do with the proposal before us and there's record for the southerly route. There's commentary towards the northerly route. That decision will happen at the Council level. We can move this project forward with approval only to have the Council turn around and say, we need to look at that issue before taking anything forward and moving it back. I guess my question always is, what is the most constructive use of everybody's time at our level and at the Council's level. Is it best that we table or deny until these issues are resolved or do we take the issue forward based on what's been presented with the assumption that the northern route will be there. If the northern route is not there, this is not the development likely that's there. I can't say that for fact but that's certainly a possibility. That's my struggle with this. I think it's a nice 38 i J Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 development in terms of the quality of the product that's there. I think that there are ways with proper vegetation and berming to create a significant transition, if you will. It's not going to be perfect. It's not going to be what was imagined but when you moved in you were dealing with agricultural estate zoning which wouldn't yield this type of product but we're dealing with a rezoning and we're dealing with a product that, according to staff meets the requirements and spirit, although I'm not sure I fully agree with the spirit side of that but I'm not knowledgeable enough to give anything other than my opinion. So that's my struggle here is do we take what's presented to us and upon the assumption of the northerly route and move it forward. And it seems to me that that's a more productive way at times of dealing with these than the constant denial and tabling process. I'm not convinced that, if the Council has and makes the decision based on public opinion or hearing, that the northerly route is there, then this project is in place so. I don't know. I guess I'd like to listen to Nancy's comments and Joe's then put this thing to a vote. Scott: So your position is? Nutting: I'm leaning towards moving it forward with conditions dealing with the barrier, the transition and the color scheme I don't know, of the development. I would be open to requiring to bring it back to see more detail. The drawings or schematics or other things that laid it out there but that would be the only condition I would have. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: A couple of things. I thought Jeff had a lot of good points about this being premature and that is dependent upon where the frontage road goes. My concerns, this is based on the northern route. If the City Council goes in it's final resolution with the southern route, I then need to see to .this development an east extension into Gorra's property because I G would think that there, the orra property if you have the southern route, you're going to need a route coming from Galpin over into Gorra's property so this would need to be extended some way so that Gorra's property has, depending on what happens there but there needs to be, we need to look ahead into that property also. So if the City Council does pass the southern alignment of the frontage road, I would look at this plat differently. So the way it is to the north, I'm fine with the frontage road and the way it goes through the Gorra property because it will get us into there to allow development there. To go south, it just won't do it. And we have so many times just looked at small parcels and have years or months later wished we would have looked past the individual parcel that we're looking at to see how it all connects. Secondly, I do agree with Jeff and Diane on seeing this all as a PUD. I would like to see it as an R-4 PUD with Phase I being single family. To have a transition between Mill Run. When I went to a couple of the sites, I noticed that the one in Eden Prairie is not completed. There's one townhome but there is quite a transition between the single family. 39 PlanningCommission Meeting - December 7, 1994 g Across the street from it is apartment and I think it shows on what we received from Country ' Home, that the single family that abuts these twin homes has a nature area between it. And so that they did consider it. It has not only a roadway but a nature area so they did have a nice transition and I think that that would be in order here. So I don't see moving this ' forward until City Council makes a decision on the frontage road. ' Scott: Okay. Well I'll just touch on two issues. Just for those of you who are relatively new. We had a similar development. Actually it was more dense come through as a, I'll call it a PUD which is a planned urban development. Basically what that allows is that allows the ' City of Chanhassen more control as to the type of materials, the appearance, the mixes of density and so forth. What the developers get, and obviously it has to be a quid pro quo, is that they get more density. They get a little bit more flexibility so I mean people opt for that ' if they're looking at developing some sort of unique piece of property or there's some property with some particular difficulties. What we ended up doing at Mission Hills is it was abutting some large lot, 1 and 2 acre lots and what the developer did is they put single family housing along the area that was abutting the larger lots. And then from there they transitioned into six plexes, eight plexes and 12 and then I believe 16 plexes. That's what I would like to see here. There are two issues that I see. One is the transition. Assuming that the City Council ' puts forth a definitive answer as to where the frontage road goes, the only issue I would have with this development would be having a single family transition on the north end and that's something that we've done in the past. The bigger question however is that we don't know ' where that frontage road is going to go and I would agree with Jeff that we really need to have in I believe in concrete before we can do the kind of planning that we'd like so I would recommend, and I don't know what the vehicle is here but I would recommend sending on to ' the City Council, to make our job easier, that we would like to see the location. Mancino: And the developers. ' Scott: And the developer's job easier, to see precisely where this road is going to go. And then once that's in place, that's going to remove a large amount of uncertainty and allow us to ' do our job on I guess a more timely basis. So that's really all I'm going to say. I'd like to have someone make a motion please. ' Harberts: I'll move denial of rezoning 49.9 acres, Case #94-14 with property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to R-4, Mixed Low Density Residential, preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot and the wetland alteration permit located north of ' Highway 5 approximately 1/4 mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard, Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands based on, I think the driving factor here is that the city, from my perspective the city is on record, it's the southern alignment. This plan is not consistent 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 with what is the direction of City Council. The other issues include the transition and I would like to see a PUD process. Scott: Okay. So basically you're denying the rezoning, the preliminary plat and the wetland alteration permit in one motion? Harberts: Right. Scott: Okay. May I have a second please? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we support the motion. May I have some discussion please, if there is any? Conrad: Yeah there is. I think the Planning Commission should have a little bit of a workshop on transitions. I really don't think we know what a transition is and right now we're talking, we've got 13 houses backed up to 9 and we're talking transition. The 13 houses is on the Windmill Run. The 9 is on this one. I don't know what we're, I think we're making some real arbitrary decisions. The premature, this plat, this subdivision is totally dependent on the northern alignment. It cannot go forward without approval of the northern alignment. It is contingent on the northern alignment. We wouldn't be doing our job as planners if we let it go and said well, if it's the southerly alignment, this plat is fine. It isn't. On the northern alignment, if that's the one, it in my estimation, with some modification, it works. If it's premature, semantics are rather critical here. We approved the northern alignment, what a year ago? My understanding is that probably the City Council should move on something within a year. I don't know if the development, I would call this development premature. It was our job to get a road in place. I think the task force did. The city is at fault here. The developer has all the right in the world. This is a sewered area. They have all the right in the world to come forward. So the city has to figure out where this road is going. This development is going to force that issue but unfortunately what it's doing is it's forcing it on a timeframe that may not be right. It should have been worked on prior to this and maybe somebody's ready to do something. The other thing that I'm just going to get, I'm counting heads and seeing where this is going but you know, so that's why I said workshop. I don't think we know what transition is. I really can't figure out what we're doing here is dictating that Chanhassen is going to be single family oriented because twin homes is obviously not single family. I don't know what we're going to do as a commission when somebody starts bringing in real affordable housing. We'll never be able to find transitions for it. Maybe we'll have a $70,000.00 house and then an $80,000.00 and then a 90. I'm really concerned 41 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 that we are not sure what we're doing. Reinforcing the motion. This can't go forward until ' the northerly alignment is approved. ' Farmakes: Or disapproved. Conrad: Or disapproved, yeah. We could move that this is approved. We can approve this. ' That's not what the motion is but we can approve this contingent on the northerly alignment. That would have been my motion. Scott: Basically what happens from our standpoint is that it goes onto the City Council so it does not stop here. It goes on to the City Council and then they have to deal with that but actually it's, my thought process is what we want to see happen is having the access ' boulevard fixed into some location it is probably not fair for us to send this thing on simultaneous with having them locate the frontage road. My thought process is, I mean you have to have one first so denial basically sends it on, is basically all we're doing. Nutting: That then implies that the Council listens to everything we say. Harberts: Oh, which they always do right? Nutting: Which they've proven time and time again that they don't. Scott: Isn't that right Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: No comment. Farmakes: But isn't the reversal true. That the other implies that if you send a development with the northerly route, a couple of weeks after you have the consultants in telling you why you should go with the northerly route, it seems to me that there's a part missing out of there which would be the discussion as to why you should use the southerly route and that interpretation. Conrad: But if we as a commission voted on the northerly route. Farmakes: A majority. Conrad: A majority did. We also voted on some, I think we all endorsed the comprehensive, or the Highway 5, well and again there are exceptions but I think we all saw some higher density, medium density and lower density in this area. And this is following that. This plan 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 is following a lot of the things that this Planning Commission endorsed. The neighbors have some good gripes. This plan follows what we've said we want it to do. Farmakes: Although I would respond by saying that the same densities and the same plan could be followed with the southerly alignment. More creativity being used on the total parcel but not using the frontage road to compartmentalize where it goes. That was my. Conrad: And there are trade offs. Farmakes: This whole thing is nothing but trade offs. Harberts: I'll just reiterate. I think it's a good plan. I'm just uncomfortable with some of the aspects with regards to, I don't have enough information in terms of what the, I guess what some of the details are. I know under subdivision we don't get into that kind of detail. I think with what the community brought up though, I think it warrants that we at least insure that those type of details, those type of elements, that we can confirm back to them that the integrity, that the values are there. The question, when I asked, is this the developer. The response was, well if this is approved. Well that doesn't get us anywhere. I'm just looking for a little bit more solid. In terms of the transition. If the only issue is transition, I'd be more inclined to pass it on with an approval because you can do the berm or trees or something and leave it up to staff. But that was just a subpoint considering what some of I see the main issues are. Again, I'd like to see more of this type of development in Chanhassen. I don't think there's anything wrong with what's going on in the region. This is the best thing that's coming this way. It could be a lot worse folks. I know what's going on out there and I think Jeff has a flavor too. I think the City Council needs to look at some kind of direction in terms of goals. If it's affordable housing, if it's more multi -housing. I think this legislative session is going to be very interesting as well but like I said, I think this is a nice plan but all the elements aren't there for me so that's why I'm moving denial. Nutting: Diane, I take your point. You're saying that if it were just the issue of transition that you could see moving it forward with. Harberts: With some type of status. Nutting: ...so your main issue then is the northerly/southerly alignment? Is that the main ' thing... Harberts: The main issue really is what drives development. Is it the developers or is it the , road or what? Nancy brought up a good point too in terms of what's happening with the Gorra property. This isn't really addressing that. In a PUD you have that opportunity. It's all , 43 F, L PlanningCommission Meeting - December 7, 1994 g of those type of things. But like he said, I like it. I like the proposal. I like the concept. ' It's just that not all the dots are connected for me but the real driving point is that this isn't consistent with what's on the position by the City Council. Ladd you're certainly right. You could say you know, you know subject to whatever the approval is, and I also think that the ' City Council, sure it's not an easy job but they have to get on a position and my understanding they are by the resolution and that's what I'm following. I think that this is a ' good project that forces the decision. I hope it forces the decision because we've got to get going. That's one of the problems with government. We sit there too long. Scott: Is there anything else? Nutting: Yeah 1 guess I just want to echo Ladd's comments because I've heard this issue, and not a very long period of time about transition and it takes a different form with each development but if the transition is always to be single family, you've got the same issue even with the transition of the transition. You're going to ask a developer to come in and say, we want you to put single family here and then put your multi unit townhome or other development there. It may or may not develop with those requirements. The developer may have the same issues as the residents. I mean it's a real can of worms. Farmakes: But there's several developments here like that ... there are several developments here that the developer's strings are sort of weighing itself there for single family to have transition. Nutting: No question. Farmakes: It's not necessarily units or how many units of property. It's also, it could be types of housing. Nutting: Well types is numbers. Conrad: We obviously figure this, you've got a buffer with single family. That's obviously the leaning of the commission. And how were we going, how were we ever going to make a transition to Highway 5? I don't understand it. Farmakes: I think your hearing in the marketplace here right now. It's not necessarily in this cases, these are homes probably more expensive than the houses they abut. So it's not an issue of economics. It's not an issue necessarily of sight. These are nice houses. It's an issue perhaps of the types of housing and perhaps the housing next to it. In other words, not the adjacent property. The property after that and how many units you're looking at in a short period of distance. So the question here is, you're hearing what the market's saying. The 44 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 market's coming back and saying, I bought single family. I want to see single family next to me. That's where it's at. Nutting: That's where everything is. Farmakes: We had the same problem with a couple of the other developments in here. Once that was taken care of, the resistance died down and I can't say that when we look at a buffer situation that you're going to come up with one solution for everything because I'm amazed by what we, the berm that we're seeing over on that property on Minnewashta Parkway and TH 7. It looks like a fort. That's not a berm, that's a hill. Conrad: I think we should move on but I think we've got to talk about this stuff because we're creatively, we're ad libbing. Nutting: The other unknown for me is, to put it to rest is, what do we then get with the PUD process and what type of development will evolve from that. Will we get, maybe we'll get the single family home buffer because we can control that but then what's the rest of it, and economics, it will drive everything in the process because it's driving the development right now. But there are give and takes in the process so. Farmakes: We will create the same problem that we did when we approved Timberwood up there. That's going to be the nucleus to drive all the development around it and should it be that way? Should that be what dictates that in this regard? After all the monies that have been spent along the highway and 2 years worth of work and studying. It seems to me, not only for this property, but adjacent properties that what you're proposing in the current motion that's out on the floor is appropriate. That we should know where that is. Mancino: Staff, or Bob, could you answer the question about what do you get with a PUD that Ron asked, versus a regular standard subdivision? Nutting: I know there are, my question is what is the developer going to want to put with a PUD versus with the standard approach. That's where, they're not going to answer that. They don't have that answer. Peter Beck: We will answer it. Harberts: I think we should call the question. Conrad: Yeah. 45 11 11 U k k C Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 1994 Scott: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to deny the three items before us. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Rezoning #94-7 rezoning 35.1 acres encompassing the land north of the north Highway 5 collector road from A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential; to deny the Preliminary Plat #94-7 and to deny the Wedand Alteration Permit #94-6. All voted in favor, except Commissioners Conrad and Scott who opposed the motion, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Scott: This will go to the City Council on the 9th? Aanenson: January 9th. Scott: This is not the end of the process. Please follow your issue and I'd like to thank you all for coming to this and do you guys want to take a 5 minute break? We'll reconvene at 15 after 10:00. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR REVISED PLAT FOR TOWER HEIGHTS. Public Present: Name Address Renelle R. Ulrich 6581 Nez Perce Drive Dick Osgood 22035 Stratford Place, Shorewood Daryl Fortier 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley Todd Noteboom Doherty, Rumble & Butler, Mpls. Larry Moloney Doherty, Rumble & Butler, Mpls. Todd Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road Teresa Schrempp 1041 Lake Lucy Road Karen Green 1021 Lake Lucy Road Teresa Drake 980 Lake Lucy Road Jay & Marlene Payne 1081 Lake Lucy Road Linda Barck 960 Lake Lucy Road Colette McKinnon 941 Lake Lucy Road Kristi Weinstock 1101 Lake Lucy Road Tom & Anne McGinn 1121 Lake Lucy Road Bryce Fier 1040 Lake Lucy Road Len Kluver 1080 Lake Lucy Road 46 JAMES P. LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN JACK F. DALY D. KENNETH LINDGREN GERALD H. FRIEDELL ALLAN E. MULLIGAN C. ERICKSON EDWARD J. DRISCOLL GENE N. FULLER JOHN D. FULLMER ROBERT E. BOYLE FRANK L HARVEY CHARLES S. MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN JOHN R. BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. STOLTMAN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN E. DIEHL JON S. SW IERZEW SKI THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P. QUINN TOOD 1. FREEMAN PETER K. BECK GERALD L. BECK JOHN e. LUNDQUIST DAYLE NOLAN• THOMAS B. HUMPHREY. JR. JOHN A. COTTER. BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER PAUL B. PLUNKETT ALAN L. KILDOW KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN MICHAEL B. LEBARON GREGORY E.KORSTAO GARY A. VAN CLEVE• DANIEL L. BOWLES January 6, 1995 Lh..KIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, AJTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 FAX (612) 896-3333 Ms. Kate Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 Re: Lake Ann Highlands Dear Kate: TIMOTHY J. McMANUS TIMOTHY J. KEANE ALAN RSON DONNAA L. L. ROBROBACK MICHAEL W. SCHLEY LISA A. GRAY GARY A. RENNEKE CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON J.DOUGLAS WILLI ' WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN DANIEL W. VOSS JOHN R. HILL PETER J. COYLE MICHAEL J. SMITH R. IN DWI t DW IGHT N.. HOLMBO ANDREW F. PERRIN ANN M. MEYER FREDERICK K. HAUSER III LARRY D. MARTIN JANE E. BREMER RENEE L. JACKSON RISTOPHER M K. LARUS ' ARCY R. KREISMAN MARIEL E. PIILOLA DAMON E. SCHRAMM STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI RACHAEL A. JAROSH AMELIA A. BUHARIN THOMAS F. ALEXANDER DANIEL T. KADLEC OF COUNSEL - WENDELL R. ANDERSON JOSEPH GITIS JEROME H. KAHNKE MARK A. RURIK ' •A150 ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN This letter is to confirm that the developers of Lake Ann Highlands have agreed to have this project removed from the City Council's Agenda for January 9, 1995, and rescheduled for the City Council meeting of February 13, 1995. The developers of Lake Ann Highlands will waive the 120 day requirement to and including February 13, 1995, so that the City Council can make its decision on the location of Arboretum Boulevard on January 23, 1995. Please call either Brad Johnson or myself if you have any questions. Vncerely, r K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw cc: Brad Johnson Dr. Lars Conway !RECEIVED PKB:JN6s 199 7 CITY OF CHANHAt�SEIN I JAMES P. LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN JACK F. DALY D. KENNETH LINDGREN GERALD H. FRIEDELL ALLAN E. MULLIGAN JAMES C. ERICKSON EDWARD J. DRISCOLL GENE N. FULLER JOHN D. FULLMER ROBERT E. BOYLE FRANK L HARVEY CHARLES S. MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN JOHN R. BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. STOLTMAN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN E. DIEHL JON S. SWIERZEWSKI THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P. QUINN TODD I. FREEMAN PETER K. BECK GERALD L. BECK JOHN B. LUNDQUIST DAYLE NOLAN' THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. JOHN A. COTTER' BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER PAUL B. PLUNKETT ALAN L. KILDOW KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN MICHAEL S. LEBARON GREGORY E.KORSTAD GARY A. VAN CLEVE' DANIEL L. BO W LES February 8, 1995 LAMN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 FAX (64 2) 896-3333 Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 Re: Lake Ann Highlands Dear Mayor Chmiel and Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of Dr. Lars Conway, owner of the property proposed to be developed by Brad Johnson and CountryHome Builders as Lake Ann Highlands. TIMOTHY J. M.MANUS TIMOTHY J. KEANE ALAN M. ANDERSON DONNA L. ROBACK MICHAEL W. SCHLEY USA A. GRAY GARY A. RENNEKE CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON BRUCE J. DOUGLAS WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN DANIEL W. VOSS JOHN R. HILL PETER J. COYLE MICHAEL J. SMITH VIUS R. INDE DWIGHT N. HOLMBO ANDREW F. PERRIN ANN M. MEYER FREDERICK K. HAUSER III LARRY D. MARTIN JANE E. BREMER RENEE L. JACKSON CHRISTOPHER K. LARUS MARCY R. KREISMAN MARIEL E. PIILOLA DAMON E. SCHRAMM STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI RACHAEL A. JAROSH AMELIA A. BUHARIN THOMAS F. ALEXANDER DANIEL T. KADLEC SHARNA A. WAHLGREN OF COUNSEL WENDELL R. ANDERSON JOSEPH GITIS JEROME H. KAHNKE MARK A. RURIK 'ALSO ADMITTED IN W ISCONSIN Dr. Conway purchased this property in the early 1980's as an investment. His intention was and always has been that the property be developed in accordance with the City's policies, plans and ordinances. During the mid to late 19801s, Dr. Conway held off on developing the property while the City went through the long process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. The updated Comprehensive Plan was eventually adopted in 1991, and designated Dr. Conway's property for low and medium density residential uses. Shortly after approving the 111990 Comprehensive Plan," the City Council initiated a study of the Highway 5 Corridor Area. Once again, Dr. Conway delayed the sale and development of his property while the Highway 5 planning process proceeded. The "Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study" was completed in August 1993 and approved by the Planning Commission on January 19, 1994. The study recommends that Dr. Conway's property be developed for "medium to high density residential, as shown in the 1990 plan." The study has yet to be acted upon by the City Council. LARIGN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 Page 2 Having waited over a decade to proceed with the sale and development of his property, Dr. Conway decided in early 1994 to present the City with a development proposal which complies in all respects with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This is the project which will be before the City Council on February 13, 1995. The proposal is to rezone the northern portion of Dr. Conway's property from A-2, Agricultural Estate District, to R-4, Mixed Low Density Residential District, to allow the development of a high quality, upper -end twin home project. Ross Fefercorn, President of CountryHome Builders will be the developer. Ross will be at the City Council meeting to present the proposed development. The twin home development will be developed in two or three phases, from north to south. Although preliminary plat approval will be sought for Dr. Conway's entire property, final plat approval will only be sought for the first phase of the twin home development, including 38 lots. The preliminary plat includes a large outlot adjacent to Highway 5. This is the area designated by the City's Comprehensive Plan for medium density development. No zoning approvals are presently being sought for this portion of Dr. Conway's property. While Dr. Conway waited for the City to complete the Highway 5 planning process, two new single family subdivisions were platted to the north of his property. These subdivisions are Royal Oaks to the north, platted at approximately 1.5 units per acre; and Windmill Run to the south, immediately adjacent to Dr. Conway's property, platted at approximately 2.5 units per acre. The twin home proposal for Dr. Conway's property is approximately 3.5 units per acre. The new owners of homes in the Royal Oaks and Windmill Run subdivisions have opposed the twin home development of Dr. Conway's property. There is no other opposition to the project that we are aware of. City staff has recommended approval of the twin home project. The neighbors to the north of Dr. Conway's property who have opposed the project have stated that when they bought their homes they were promised by City staff that development to the south of them would only be for single family detached housing. Many of these neighbors have also expressed concern about traffic coming into their neighborhood through the proposed connection at Windmill Run Road, and about buffering and screening of the project from their homes. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the project because they felt a decision was premature until the City Council had made a decision on the location of the Highway 5 frontage road, and because some Planning Commission members preferred that the property be developed as a PUD. Neither the facts nor the law will support denial on any of these grounds. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. k U Ll 1 Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 Page 3 1. DEVELOPMENT OF DR. CONWAY'S PROPERTY AS PROPOSED IS NOT PREMATURE. The Planning Commission was concerned about approving a development proposal for the property prior to City Council action on the alignment of the Highway 5 frontage road. The City Council has now taken action, deciding that the frontage road will be placed along the southern alignment. In response to this decision we have moved the frontage road alignment in Outlot A from a northern to a southern alignment. The remainder of the preliminary plat for the project remains unchanged. In fact, the preliminary plat before the City Council can accommodate either the northern or southern alignment. In any event, the City Council has now made a decision on the frontage road and it is no longer premature to act on the proposed plat. Development of this project is also appropriate at this time, and not premature, because the development proposed is consistent with the City's existing Comprehensive Plan, adopted four years ago, and because the City has already assessed the portion of the property proposed to be developed in Phase I for sanitary sewer. This assessment was levied in 1993 as part of City Project No. 92-5. Dr. Conway cooperated in this project by executing a waiver of any objection to the assessment, and by providing the City with necessary easements for construction of the sewer line. Dr. Conway did not oppose this assessment on the assumption that property which has been assessed for sewer is appropriate for development. 2. THERE IS NO NEED, AND THERE IS NO RIGHT, TO FORCE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. The Planning Commission would prefer that Dr. Conway's property be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, the R-4 zoning proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and there is no authority in the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance for the Planning Commission or City Council to force development of a PUD, or deny development because the property owner has not proposed a PUD. More importantly, there is no reason for a PUD in this instance because the project is subject to the newly enacted Highway 5 design requirements set forth in the Highway Corridor Overlay Zoning District. The intent of the PUD zoning district is set forth in Section 20-501 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Planned Unit Developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing LARIUN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 Page 4 and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectation are to be realized " In this case the developer is not requesting relaxation of the normal zoning district standards and is not requesting greater variety of uses, density transfers or lower development costs. More importantly, the City is getting a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal even without the PUD zoning, through the City's new Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zoning District. The intent of the overlay district is set forth in Section 20-1451 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: The City intends that all development within the District should strive toward the highest level of quality in both design and construction. The Highway 5 Corridor Overlay District goes on to establish very strict design standards. The project proposed for Dr. Conway's property is subject to this ordinance and complies with it in all respects. The City has achieved its goals and the intent of the PUD zoning district without a PUD, and without relaxing its normal zoning district standards. The PUD zone is an option available to a developer to obtain enhanced flexibility through the relaxation of normal zoning standards, it is not an option the City can force on a developer in order to obtain or impose stricter standards than those set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the City has achieved a development of the highest quality without a PUD by virtue of its Highway Corridor overlay zone, and there is no practical reason or legal basis for requiring that the project be developed as a PUD, or for denying a rezoning to R-4. 3. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS TO DENY THE REQUESTED R-4 ZONING AND REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED RSF. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates Dr. Conway's property for low density residential development, defined as 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Dr. Conway's property is presently zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District, which requires a minimum 2.5 acre lot. The present zoning is therefore inconsistent with the present Comprehensive Plan designation. The owner is entitled to have the 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 ' Page 5 property zoned to a zoning district which is consistent with the 'Comprehensive Plan, provided that the proposed development otherwise complies with the Comprehensive Plan. 'In this case the owner proposes to rezone the property to R-4. This is a zoning district which is consistent with the designation of the property in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The RSF district would also be consistent with the property's designation in the 'City's Comprehensive Plan. The owner would be entitled to rezone to either district, provided that the proposed development meets the requirements of that district and the Comprehensive Plan. The fact that the owner has a right to have the property rezoned to either one of two zoning districts which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, does not mean that the City Council can arbitrarily deny rezoning to one of those districts and require the owner to rezone the property to the other. The City Council has a wide amount of discretion in acting on rezoning requests, but the Council cannot act arbitrarily and cannot make a zoning decision based solely on neighborhood opposition. In this case, the proposed R-4 zoning complies in all respects with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the proposed development complies in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance. The R-4 zoning and twin home proposal is a perfect transition between the existing RSF zoning and single family development to the north, and the medium density Comprehensive Plan designation to the south. The Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages precisely this type of transition from lower to higher density. Unless the City Council makes specific findings on why this proposed development and the proposed rezoning is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, there is no basis to deny the proposed R-4 zoning. 4. THERE IS NO BASIS TO DENY THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS A TWIN HOME DEVELOPMENT. The neighbors to the north of Dr. Conway's property have opposed this project primarily because the project is a twin home development, not a single family detached development. Most have testified that they were told by City staff that development of Dr. Conway's property would be for single family detached housing. City staff has not agreed that this is what the neighbors were told. However, regardless of what homebuyers to the north were told, the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential uses and the City Zoning Ordinance very clearly allows single family and two family dwellings in low density residential zoning districts. Whether or not staff mislead these new homebuyers, and we have no reason to think that they did, LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 Page 6 as a matter of law no one is entitled to rely on representations made by an administrative official of a city. Dr. Conway, however, is entitled to rely on the adopted policies, plans and ordinances of the City. These policies, plans and ordinances allow for development of the property for two family dwellings. There is no legal basis for denying twin homes on this property. The project is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. More importantly, there is no factual basis for denying this project because it is a twin home development. This is a project which will have no negative effect on the neighborhood to the north. The proposed twin homes will be equal to or greater in value than the single family homes to the north. Because of the zero lot line configuration, there will be fewer buildings and each building will have a bigger yard and more green space than if the property were developed as single family detached housing. Because of the developer selected, the project as a whole will have significantly more landscaping and trees than the Property would have if developed as single family detached housing. Because the project will be marketed primarily to "empty nesters," the project will generate less activity and less traffic than if it were developed as single family detached housing. Because the exterior of the homes in the project, and all of the yards and common areas, will be maintained by a homeowners association, this project will be uniformly and meticulously maintained. In essence, this project will make the perfect neighbor: a high quality, high value, high amenity, well -maintained, low activity use. Other than the fact that the project is not what the neighbors to the north expected, and that the typical resident will be older than the neighbors to the north, we are at a loss to understand the objections. The neighbors to the north are also concerned about buffering between their homes and the proposed project, and traffic from the proposed development entering their neighborhood through the connection to Windmill Run Road. Typically, screening or buffering occurs between differing land uses. This is the context in which buffering is discussed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In this instance, the two projects are not only both residential land uses, they are both low density residential land uses. Nevertheless, CountryHome Builders' philosophy is to include large amounts of landscaping within its developments, and Ross Fefercorn has agreed to group a large part of this landscaping on the northern edge of the project to screen and buffer the project from the development to the north. The details of this landscape buffer will be presented at the City Council meeting. LARIUN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 ' Page 7 The purpose of connecting Windmill Run Road to the project is to 'provide access for the Windmill Run neighborhood to the new Highway 5 frontage road. Staff feels strongly that the connection should be made for this reason. However, the twin home project does not need this connection. It will not serve the residents of the twin home project, who would go directly to Galpin to get to the north rather than through the Windmill Run neighborhood. Therefore, if the City Council does not want this connection to be 'made, we will revise the plat accordingly. We would suggest that the Council has at least the following three alternatives: ' 1. Connect Windmill Run as shown on the preliminary plat. If this is the Council's decision, we recommend that the connection not be opened until after construction is completed in the twin home project. ' 2. Connect the twin home development to Windmill Run Road, but not until the frontage road is completed to the east. ' This would ensure that the connection is not opened until its primary proposed use is viable. 3. Do not connect Windmill Run Road to the twin home ' development, and revise the Lake Ann Highlands plat to remove the connection. If this is the Council's decision, we would agree that only Phase I of the twin home development proceed until a second outlet from the development is available to the south. 'Approval of the project by the City Council subject to any one of these conditions is agreeable to the developer. CONCLUSION ' The proposed Lake Ann Highlands twin home development presents a unique opportunity for the City of Chanhassen. The City's 'Comprehensive Plan sets forth several policies encouraging this type of development, including the following: The development of alternative types of housing such as patio homes, townhouses, and quadplexes should be permitted to supplement conventional single family homes and apartments providing that they are compatible with appropriate land use ' practices and are representative of high quality development. Individuals in the empty nester segment [ages 55-641 ' represented 6W of Chanhassen's population in 1980. Typically, empty nesters desire higher quality, smaller housing units once they decide to leave the single family homes in which they LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council February 8, 1995 Page 8 raise their children. It is not unusual for empty nesters to consider attached forms of housing which eliminate the need for continuous exterior maintenance. At the present time, there is a need for housing to accommodate this group. High quality, high amenity townhouse or condominium units are one form of housing which may help satisfy empty nester demand. The Lake Ann Highlands twin home development presents a unique opportunity for the City of Chanhassen to meet this goal of the Comprehensive Plan and to provide a housing opportunity not currently available in an appropriate location. This is a project which complies precisely with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, the City's newly adopted Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zoning District, and all other requirements of City Ordinance. We urge the City Council to take this opportunity to provide a high quality, high tax generating residential use to set the tone for future development in the Highway 5 Corridor. We will be at the City Council meeting Monday night to present the project in greater detail and to answer any questions. We will also bring the original copy of this letter along with the City's Comprehensive Plan which we request be made part of the City's formal record in this matter, along with the City's Zoning Ordinance, the staff reports on this project, the presentation materials on the project, including the slides and other materials presented by Ross Fefercorn, and the minutes of the Planning Commission's deliberations. truly yours, Peter K. Be for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw cc: Dr. Lars Conway PKB:JP3s 11 I I Cinda & David Jensen 2173 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Don Chmiel Mayor, Chanhassen 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel, February 9, 1995 My husband and I recently moved our family from St. Louis Park to our new home in Chanhassen at 2173 Brinker Street. We made this move after three years of saving and looking for just the right community. Our intent was to find a home in a community where we would raise our children. We did not focus on one specific location to find what we were looking for ... we considered the communities of Stillwater, Afton, Delano, Orono, St. Michael, and Anoka just to name a few. Simply put, we were looking for a community with a small-town feel. In our search, we visited churches and we talked with educators, city planners, local business owners and local residents. In the spring of 1994, after taking our children to the Chaska Community Center, we visited the Rottlund Home development at Windmill Run in Chanhassen. We already knew we liked Chanhassen, and we liked what we saw with Rottlund Homes. From the first day of our interest in Rottlund Homes - Windmill Run, we asked Rottlund's sales representative, Murray Rudisill, what was planned for the surrounding areas of the Windmill Run and Royal Oaks Estates developments. Murray informed us that the land south of our property was planned to be developed as single family homes similar to that in the Windmill Run development. Not relying on this information as fact, we explored this matter further. My husband, David Jensen, contacted Bob Generas at City Hall. They discussed planned developments of the area surrounding Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates. Bob informed my husband the land directly south of Windmill Run was zoned for single family home residential. Later, my husband visited City Hall and talked with John Rask. John Rask showed my husband a zoning map of the area and pointed out that the area south of Windmill Run was zoned the same as Windmill Run and, therefore, would have similar homes. This information was very important to us in making our decision to build our home at 2173 Brinker Street. Recently, we were informed of the Lake Ann Highlands proposed development of twin family homes on the same property both Bob Generas and John Rask told us was zoned for single family homes. We were shocked by this since we had directly asked twice about plans for this area and were never told that twin homes were a possibility. We have learned many of our neighbors were also misinformed when they received information from City Hall. We are all very dismayed with this situation. When my husband and I made our decision to raise our family in Chanhassen and to ' make a substantial investment ($226,000) in building our home, we did so with information about this growing community from the city planners at Chanhassen City Hall. With only 47 homes in Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates combined, we looked forward to an expanding single family neighborhood to our south. We also believe the Lake Ann Highlands proposal does not support Chanhassen's comprehensive development plan and we believe the plan will increase traffic and safety issues in our community. We know you have not yet made a decision on this matter. As you are called upon to make a planning decision for the city of Chanhassen, we sincerely hope you will consider single family homes for the area we have discussed in effort to expand the ' beginnings of our single family neighborhood. We trust we have moved to a community where city officials listen and respond. We ' want to be involved in decisions which may affect our community. Thank you in advance for listening. ' Sincerely, 1 Cinda Jensen ' Chanhassen Resident 0 I